twittergate

We're really not fans of Ed Miliband...but for goodness' sake, it was just a typo! Obviously. So why is it causing such a furore? Surely partly because of Diane Abbott's silly (and amazingly reckless) twitter comment - but the difference is that her tweet had intent (quite possibly not the intent under which it was taken*) not a mis-pressed vowel.

*Its reference to colonialism is surely irrelevant in context. Abbott, having worked so hard to try to stop people generalising based on race, must know this kind of comment is unacceptable. Not to mention career damaging when made on a vast public forum like twitter...

splendid isolation

EU Summit Summary

• Cameron's requests (exemption for the UK from certain financial regulations) are turned down, and he stands firm on the issue of treaty rewriting
• A new inter-governmental deal is agreed (and will be finalised by March). Its aim is to help restore confidence in the euro by the introduction of new rules, and penalties
• The summit ends with the UK being the sole country to refuse to take part in this, or indeed contribute financially until other G20 members do so. Out of the 27 EU countries, 3 of the other non-eurozone members are yet to confirm their agreement, but are, in principal, behind it.
• The City and the Conservatives are happy with Cameron's decision

No matter how many new deals, proclamations, and rules, surely it's only a question of time - the euro must collapse. This over-expanded monetary union incorporates countries of such varying economic stability and different systems of taxation, that when disaster strikes, its constituents are unable to attempt to recover. They cannot:

• Set their own interest rates
• Devalue their currencies to help cheapen exports
• Lower inflation
• Print money through quantative easing

Whilst too disparate politically, economically, and systemically for a unified solution, the countries have no independence over their fiscal arrangements to fix their problems individually. In these dark days, a strong, independent Britain is essential for the future security of Europe. Well done, Cameron.

PS Might a German exit help by enabling the possibility of devaluing...?

fracking good?

Interesting R4 programme about shale gas today, mainly highlighting the opposition to its exploration.

Pros:

• Exploiting remaining natural resources in a time of fossil fuel shortages
• Creating new jobs
• Relatively sightly (after their initial installation)
• Boosting the economy
• Building industry (excellent for recession fighting)
• Cutting down on imports

Cons:

• Losing focus on/funding for renewable energy
• Potential contamination from water and the installation process
• Losing agrarian land, and possibly the trust of the buyers of its produce (owing to fear of contamination/inability to maintain organic status)
• Jobs created being mostly for the highly skilled

striking blows

• Striking during negotiations is counter-productive, premature, and shows a lack of commitment to a fair solution
• Private sector employees have been dealing with these, and often further, strictures for several years
• The traditional pension situation is untenable in this time of increasing agespans and economic hardship

the fox hunt

Breaking our silence on the Fox hunt.

Afraid we weren't convinced by the (bordering on arrogant) tone of Liam Fox's Commons statement today. Whilst completely agreeing with his anger at the press hounds (we all know what he's talking about, and the people who keep on and on about this must grow up) - we feel that he hasn't quite realised that even his strongest supporters (including us) have come to realise that he was in the wrong.

For we have accepted that his resignation was correct, and that there are still questions which must be answered. But now, we who initially held onto the view that he was a (mostly) excellent politician who made a mistake (out of misplaced generosity to a friend), are starting to face that this arrogance prevented him from taking advice which could have (potentially) stopped this problem ever arising.

He has damaged his career, perhaps irrevocably, but he has also damaged the cabinet - and that is not something for which to be unrepentant.

the big speech

In our party, 'we don't boo our leaders.'

Damn right. He may no longer have time to memorise conference speeches, but today David Cameron proved himself to be just as inspiring and relevant as in 2007. Then, providing the party with a solution to their leadership vacancy, today, confirming that that choice is still right - he remains, not only a strong PM, but also an excellent rhetorician, and, particularly important this year, realistically reassuring.

may be right

As someone sensibly pointed out on Radio 4 this morning, 'Axing the Human Rights Act does not mean axing human rights.'

hewning away at fossil fuel (29/9)

Rather than adding to the standard (or substandard) chat depicting the Libdem conference, here's reviewing the Chris Huhne (for one night only at the Centre For Life) lecture on energy sources and the economy.

Whilst embracing their merits, (perhaps owing to the high ratio of scientists to civilians in the audience), Huhne deliberated at length on low-carbon energy options without really detailing their makeup. Although he did reaffirm his physical attraction to onshore wind farms. His central tenet bound together an economist past with the coalition's green plan of the present - his claim being that investment in renewable energy sources is key to recovery from recession, and securing future fiscal stability. Indeed, he presented the global desire for such investment as a 21st century space race - if we don't get in there quickly, he told us, developing economies will take our place - comparing today's need to that of Britain following the '29+ recession, when the economy was bolstered by investment in new industry and technology.

A problem (queried by a question from the floor) his argument seemed to face, however, came from his proud equation that although the cost per unit of this low-carbon energy would be higher, the overall expense would drop, thanks to the usage of less energy - thus bolstering the economy. For then surely he was just calling for a cutdown in use - regardless of type - and indeed, that if we could find a cheaper source (he almost entirely avoided mentioning the n-word*) of energy, wouldn't economic recovery be faster... But that was possibly just misattention to detail - he did stress the growing prices of oil and gas (citing Libya's unrest amidst many other factors), and it is undeniable that there will come a day when these fossil fuels on which we depend will run out: we must be prepared for survival without them, and the skyrocketing of their value until then.

In general, his rapacious recall of facts and statistics, and well-learnt explanations (often for policy choices/cuts with which he seemed to disagree), seemed to appease the somewhat belligerent questions from the floor. His coherence, delivery, and (until the aforesaid appeasement) lack of jargonesque was most impressive throughout.

In fact, the only thing he didn't mention was cutting carbon's benefit to the environment...a choice made for what reason? To avoid appearing hippyish? To show off his 'scientific' economist credentials? Or maybe, because we all already have to know it.

*nuclear