New Climategate File!

Looks like our old friend FOIA has returned with a new file.

http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip

The Readme is below:

All very interesting.


/// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context ///





"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as...





/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]


<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.


<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.


<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]


<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's
included and what is left out.


<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
"Subsequent evidence" [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge - more evidence. What is it?


<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...]
My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.


<0414> Coe:

Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.



<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!


<2775> Jones:

I too don't see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we're choosing the periods to show warming.


<1219> Trenberth:

[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.


<0890> Jones:

We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something - it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.


<0170> Jones:

Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.


<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital - hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.


<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue - on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)


<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the
warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we'll have withdrawn
this statement - Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.





/// Communicating Climate Change ///

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made
to look foolish.


<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.


<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.


<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] 'climate change' needs to be present in people's
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon


<3062> Jones:

We don't really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.


<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what
the site [Real Climate] is about.


<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions - bad politics - to
one about the value of a stable climate - much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible


<3332> Kelly:

the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable


<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy


<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
"global icons" [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local "reason" for the
destruction - cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
"unchanging" environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change


<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That's the sort of thing we need to think about.





/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.


<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing


<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
"Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.





/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
we'll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.


<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]


<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.


<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.


<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?


<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven't increased at these levels.


<1788> Jones:

There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] - at least not a climatologist.


<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships


<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?


<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts - guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.


<2095> Steig:

He's skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica -- he
thinks the "right" answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.


<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won't be quite as necessary.


<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.


<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this


<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.


<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.





/// The Urban Heat Effect ///

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:

By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says "London's UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer".


<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can't
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.


<0044> Rean:

[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.


<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets --
we don't want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.


<1601> Jones:

I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.


<2939> Jones:

[...] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[...] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.





/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.


<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.


<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no


<4241> Wilson:

I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.


<3373> Bradley:

I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year
"reconstruction".


<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!


<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don't you want to let the result into science?


<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.


<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.





/// Science and Religion ///

<2132> Wigley:

I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.


<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.


<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God's planet into research and action.


<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.





/// Climate Models ///

<3111> Watson/UEA:

I'd agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the "big climate picture" includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.


<5131> Shukla/IGES:

["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.


<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:

While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.


<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we've applied.


<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer


<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.


<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low
level clouds.


<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.





/// The Cause ///

<3115> Mann:

By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.


<3940> Mann:

They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.


<0810> Mann:

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's
doing, but its not helping the cause


<3594> Berger:

Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.


<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase


<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it's been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish - expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!


<5294> Schneider:

Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy





/// Freedom of Information ///

<2440> Jones:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process


<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.


<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
"David Holland". Everything we found was cc'd to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you'll already have.


<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)


<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

Olympic Ticket System Working Well

Well, I didn't get any first round tickets (like nearly everyone else).

However, I did get invited to the second round.

So this morning I set an alarm for 0550, had my computer all ready to go, was logged in way before 0600. I listened carefully for the pips (and as backup, had a GMT count down linked to an atomic clock), pressed F5 (to refresh the options).

The session I wanted moved from "Not Available" to "Available", pressed Checkout then Submitted my details.

Because I'm not a cretin, I was able to read the rules, which said that your order was listed when you pressed "Submit", not when they were in your basket, so I didn't dick around with other stuff.

Apparently, shortly after this the site slowed down and people were unable to log in (I was one of them when I tried to log in again 15 minutes later). Well, maybe the idiots should have got out of bed earlier.

Of course, I'd also like to thank my exceptionally fast Gaming PC, LAN (rather than the laggy wifi) and my Virgin 50MBs cable Internet connection.

I'll let you all know if I was successful when I do. I figure the email confirming the order at 0601 is probably a good sign though!

Britain is a sexist country

As you may have seen from my earlier post, I'm back! And, what better way to restart my budding blogging career than a nice piece of analysis.

Like many (well, most!) people who applied for Olympic tickets. I failed to get any. Sure, I only applied for the cheapest I could and for the most popular events but the end result was that I didn't get any.

Luckily, not all events were sold out in the first wave and there are some tickets on sale in a "first come, first served" fashion (Browsers to F5!). The organisers have put out a handy guide of all the events still available and it actually makes quite interesting reading.

It also leads you to the unmistakable conclusion that Britain is a fundamentally sexist country.

We've all been told, time and time again, that men are equal to women. Women's sports are just as worthy as Men's sports (Afterall, the Women's champion at Wimbledon will earn as much as Federer (Or Nadal)). The problem is that the country appears to disagree.

I've shown a typical sport below: Table Tennis! For your convenience, I've highlighted the Women's only days (and by logical implication, highlighted the Men's only days).

Nearly all the availability is in Women's only days. People seem far more keen to watch Men wave their tiny bats around than women.

Of course, there is an exception. I'm going to give you one guess what possible Olympic sport is more entertaining to watch women do than men... Go on..

Freestyle Wrestling?! OK, you'd think that if it came down to watching two sweaty people roll around on top of each other in a ring, it'd be a damnsight more fun to watch the ladies rather than the gents but no. As with almost every other sport, men's days are more sold out than women's.

No clue? Well, apparently the only sport where people want to watch women is Beach Volleyball! Imagine that, the one sport where women have maximum clothing requirements and suddenly everyone wants to go see skimpy dressed women.

Overall, there are 32 sets of events. Lots are completely sold out - of those that aren't: 11 have more availability for Women's events than the Men's events. Only Beach Volleyball is the other way around.

Clearly we live in a country populated by Sexists. The British appear to prefer seeing Men compete at the top level than women. Is this because the entertainment provided by the women athletes is less? Does this apply to other fields of life?

As always, please comment below.

I'm Back!

OK.

It's been about a year now since I last blogged. I can't promise daily updates (work has been and remains hellish) but I'm going to try and resurrect this blog.

I'm going to stick to much the same topics as before:

• Ridiculous government decisions, particularly on spending or defence,


• Piss poor reporting in the media,


• Bloody awful jokes,


• and a few articles that are mainly aimed at winding someone up.

Why did I stop writing? Well, the election was won/lost simultaneously and it wasn't just as much fun laying into the Tories as it was Labour. I think that's why a lot of the right leaning bloggers faded gently over the last year.

Well, I re-read some of my old posts a few weeks back and rather enjoyed them. I also enjoyed writing them at the time, so I'm going to try and make a bit more time to re-start blogging.

Hope you enjoy the up-coming posts!

Who let the cat out of the bin?

OK, so by now, pretty much everyone on the planet, including a tribe in the jungle in Peru who have had no contact with the wider world since a plane flew overhead in 1952, has seen this photo:



Yes! It's the woman who put a cat in a bin.

I know it's August and no one really has anything better to do, but since when was putting a cat in a rather large box the worst crime known to humanity? Some people have even called for the culprit to be put to death.

OK. Let me get something straight here. The animal was a cat. It wasn't a small child, it wasn't a 85 year old man, it wasn't an adult. It was a cat. A small furry cat. It might be cute, it might purr sweetly when lazing in the sun, but it's still only a cat.

This woman didn't kill 55 Mexicans. She didn't rape 150 women and small boys. She didn't kill an 8yr old girl.

She put a Cat. In a box. She didn't break any law.

For fucks-sake people, there are serious crimes committed by nasty people. This woman, bad though she may be, is not something we should be getting riled up about. If you run over a cat in your car, whilst you may feel bad about it, there is no need to report it, same as hitting a badger, rabbit, stoat or any other wild animal.

Let's focus on the big things, right?

Why the Defence Budget shouldn't be cut

OK, it took a while, but I'm now getting angry again.

Despite all the good words from the Tory leadership about how Defence would become important in their new regime, it's pretty clear that they never actually intended to back these words up with anything useful.

The argument at the moment is that Defence isn't special and therefore should suffer the same 25%-40% cuts as the rest of the Government. KingofWrong makes the excellent point here that actually the MoD is a completely different beast to the other Government departments (though I did like his ideas about snipers in Whitehall. I'm actually going to argue that Defence shouldn't be cut from a completely different angle. In my usual style, I'm going to look at the money.

In 1997 the UK Spent £25 Billion on Defence. That sounds like quite a lot, it's even fairly impressive compared to the £41 Billion spent on Health, or £37 Billion spent on Education.

However, by 2009 the Health budget had grown to £110 Billion and the Education budget had grown to £80 Billion. These grew by 2.7 and 2.2 times respectively (For interest CPI has been about 1.2 over the same time frame).

Defence on the other hand has grown to £42 Billion, which is bigger, but only a growth of 1.7.

Let's assume that Defence grew by it's fair amount (compared to other departments - I'm going to go with 2.2 like Education). Defence would now be £55 Billion in 2009. We can then apply the 'fair' 25% cuts, which brings us back to about £42 Billion again (Had it grown like Health it would be over £50 Billion with the 25% cut).

The Defence Budget has in effect already been cut. It never benefited from the massive spending increasing across all the other government departments, so it shouldn't be punished in the same fashion.

The Tories need to back off from cutting Defence now. If they want to choose to cut the budget then they should pull us out of Afghanistan, hand the Falklands over to Argentina and re-role our forces as nothing more than a slightly tougher police force (like many of our European allies). We can then rely on the French and Americans for our Safety.

Or, they could cut those departments that grew out of control over the last 13 years (including Health) and accept that some money is better spent than others.

Sorry for my recent absence. I'll probably start writing more frequently again from now.

Just not very angry at the moment

Sorry Chaps (and Chappettes, I have no idea if anyone reads this, let alone their gender).

I've not been posting much (at all?) recently, mainly due to being very busy all of a sudden. The other problem is I'm just not that angry at the moment.

• There's a Tory government, cutting government spending and pushing through reform of a dazzling array of areas that were corrupted by the last administration.
• England won the World Cup (in cricket, sure! But there's a reasonable chance we'll do OK in the somewhat less important Football tournament).
• The sun is shining.
• Generally, there just seems to be a bit of an air of optimism. Sure things are bad. The Euro might go tits up anytime soon (which really isn't very funny, quit laughing at the back!), but at least we're starting to do something about the incredibly crappy situation we're in.

So, why bother being angry today? There'll be plenty of time for that tomorrow.

What I meant was...

Thoughts on PR and the Government we need

This is now the fourth time I've started this Post. I've been trying to write a sensible, balanced post without descending into circular arguments or just half-witted swearing.

Essentially there are two interesting things going on at the moment. And they're connected. Actually, there are three things going on at the moment, but for now I'm going to put the the Eurozone Bailout (funded by us!) onto one side for a particularly sweary rant later.

Right, the two things I want to talk about are:

• Electoral Reform
• Lib Dem support to the future Government

And boy! are they connected.

The price of a stable Lib-Dem / Tory Coalition will almost certainly be some level of Electoral Reform. I don't know what form this will take but I do know what form I'd like it to take and what form hundreds of under-informed students are stridently demanding it will be.

What I would like to happen is a mature debate around the merits of exactly what sort of elections we should have; who should be elected and what we want the government to do. This is exactly the sort of problem that cannot be solved by a minority shouting loudly for what they want.

The minority seem to be calling for Proportional Representation (or PR to its friends). This is very superficially appealing. The make-up of the House of Commons is decided purely by an exact ratio of the number of votes gained. The Lib Dems would get 23% of the seats, UKIP would get 3.1% and the BNP would get only 1.9%, or a mere 12 seats. As I've said in this piece pure, simple PR would lead to a nightmare situation. The constituency link would be broken and Party Politics would be even stronger than today.

The obvious solution is to say: "Well, sure! PR may not be right then, so let's work on another method". This could be something like the Scottish model, with a two tier parliament, partially composed of constituency MPs and the rest there to make the numbers balance. Admittedly this does use the d'Hondt method of assigning seats, which at least ensures that the smallest parties have to cross a threshold. It's argued that with some form of PR turnout would rise and the smaller, more extremist parties would be squeezed into irrelevance. This doesn't seem to be the case in Switzerland (54% turnout in the major elections. Though of course, much power there is devolved to the regions).

But all this misses the damn question. There are far more electoral problems than the mere method used to allocate seats. Why do Labour have more seats at this election than the Tories did last time, despite nowhere near the same share of the vote (And slightly tongue in cheek, where the hell were all the protesters when Labour 'won' with such a low share of the vote)? Should we have an elected House of Lords (I say no, but I can see how it could work)? Should the PM be elected directly?

Calling for Proportional Representation is just a lazy reflex response to perceived "unfairness". Voting for the Government isn't like ordering at a restaurant. You don't necessarily get what you want. You get what "the people" want. All the various voting systems try to do is work out from the mish-mash of actual votes what people actually wanted. Some reflect the people's will very closely, some lead to stable governments (Afterall, 300 years without a civil war is one of the best records in the World).

As DJPNZ said earlier: "PR will not cure our debt, or our social decay or underfunded armed forces" (he then bought up the possibility of a UK Federal system, bringing yet another possibility to be debated into the open). At the moment, we need to be cautious and have a mature, grown-up discussion about all the various things we need to do to improve the way we vote and what we're voting for.


The second interesting area is the possibility of a Lib-Con Coalition. On Friday morning I wrote a post suggesting that this could be exactly what the country needs for the future. There's a glorious possibility of two Parties coming together, losing their worst parts and becoming something greater than the sum of the parts.

I'd like to be optimistic and say that this is going to happen. It would probably be best for the country that it did. There's a lot of common ground between the Tories and the Lib Dems (despite the horror of some people on the left that perhaps politics isn't the simple right/left divide that they assume it is). The two parties both have good people and maybe could even do some good work together.

But, on the other hand, I can see this happening: The Lib Dems demand immediate, full PR. The Tories knowing this is a) suicide for them and b) bloody stupid (as outlined above) resist. Labour give Gordon Brown a revolver and a quiet room for the afternoon. Ed Millband (or Alan Johnson, or any of the various non-entities at the top of Labour) becomes the new PM. He then promises the Lib Dems a shared government, with both Parties having the same number of cabinet seats. Maybe the Lib Dems will get the seats which mean nothing to Labour, like Defence Secretary (which under Labour is the 23rd most important cabinet seat).

This coalition will be unable to do anything about the deficit (or stand firm on any other area) and the country will lurch forward another six months, teetering closer to the abyss (though unlike Greece, we don't have a $1,000 Bn bailout package set up for us). Eventually, probably on a minuscule point, the LabLib coalition will fall hard and a new election will be called. Odds are this would be before the coalition could push through PR, so it will be under FPTP again. Lib Dem voters would be demoralised and by then even Labour voters might be able to see the true face of their party. The Tories would win with a massive landslide and start taking the steps necessary to fix the country. They might be too late.

The latter situation would be best for the Tories as a party. They can watch the country burn whilst they wait for their moment in the electoral sun. Maybe we should all just be impressed that they actually seem to be trying to do what's right for all of us by pushing towards a stable Con-Lib coalition.

Are the Lib-Dems going to be able to put the country first as well? Or will they be seduced by Labours offer of anything they could possibly desire?

The Morning After

Well, I guess I feel like a lot of people today. I'm tired and slightly frustrated. I went to bed around 0600 when it was pretty clear that there wasn't a clear mandate in one direction of another. Now we enter into horse-trading. Maybe it will all be sorted by the end of the day, I don't know at the moment.

The whole election feels somewhat farcical. There are reports of fairly large numbers of people unable to vote despite turning up to the polling station before 2200. To me this is pretty simple. 2200 should be the last time you can turn up to vote. The doors then close, if you arrive at the station at 2201, you get sent home. But, if you are there on time, then no matter how long the queue - you get to vote. How hard can it be to close the doors and just wait another 30 minutes until everyone inside has voted?

(Sure, polling stations might not be big enough, but essentially: If you're in the queue by 2200, you get to vote. No exceptions)

Right, onto the actual meat of the matter. I can't imagine many people are "Happy" with that result. All major parties are probably a little bit disappointed. Maybe Labours result wasn't as bad as it could have been. Maybe Lib Dems never thought they were going to win more seats. Personally, I think that none of the parties had a good night last night.

But I'm a little bit of an Optimist. Maybe this is actually a good thing. Maybe a strong coalition government will be the best way to cut the debt without any one party being blamed for making the cuts that we all know are needed.

Maybe the Lib Dems can join with the Tories to build a new type of government, one not defined by where you are on the political spectrum, but one built on the vast areas of common ground between the two parties.

I don't know what's going to happen, but I am reminded of the Chinese curse:

"May you live in interesting times"

Well, we're certainly in one now!

Decision Time

My posts over the past few weeks have been mostly 'humourous' photos and slightly snide comments, but this one will be as serious as I can get. I make no apologies for that.

As you no doubt know, tomorrow is election day. At some point between 0700 and 2200 you'll be standing in a little cubicle, looking at a piece of paper and you'll have to make a decision.

Your mind may already be made up, and you'll stride confidently into the booth, stick a cross in the box next to your candidate, fold the paper, put it in the right box and stride out, sure that your civic duty has been assuaged for another five years.

However, your mind may be slightly wavering, and I'd like to talk you through the Choice you're going to have to make.

Firstly, I can see the attraction of voting for an independent like Old Holborn. He's making an alluring point about the general failure of politicians of all colours to solve our problems over the last few years and therefore you should protest by backing him or another minority candidate (I'd even include the BNP and the various other small parties in this bucket). Personally, I hope OH does well in Cambridge, I'd be very tempted to vote for him had he run during my university days. However, I can see that a vote for him, or any of the smaller parties is little other than a protest vote. Tomorrow may just be too important to risk a protest vote. Instead we should be voting for something.

Some of my friends and colleagues believe that this election should be characterised by a desire for electoral reform. They look at the polls and the projected results (in terms of seats) and wonder how a party can get so little of the vote and so much of the representation (and vice versa).

Rather than a protest vote, people want to vote for the Lib Dems because of their (wavering) commitment to electoral reform. Personally, I'm undecided on the benefits of Proportional Representation. I certainly think there are segments of the political spectrum who shouldn't be allowed a say. It's notable that only under PR systems do parties such as the Communists and the BNP (and they are much closer than either would admit) would gain any representation. We would also lose the constituency link as parties of all colours would stack their preferred candidates at the top of their lists, rather than a discreet set of people voting in their preferred candidate for each area. There's a strong risk that the ability to vote in a maverick, though party affiliated politician, would be severely reduced as the Party whips would be able to move them down their party's list of candidates. This would certainly be a more severe punishment than anything they can currently do to an MP, loved by their constituents, but who goes against the current party line.

However, I do believe that FPTP will need to change. I dislike the fact that the Lib Dems can get so many votes (but scattered across many regions) and win so few seats compared to Labour. I'm not sure what the optimum solution will be but I have no doubt that no matter what the result is tomorrow change will be coming to how we will vote in the future.

At least voting for the Lib Dems will be voting for something, but change is coming no matter who gets in. However, before voting Lib Dems, it's worth seeing what else you will be voting for. They have some desirable policies, I'd like to raise the taxation threshold to £10,000. I know that this will cost £17 Bn next year but it's still a relatively sensible policy. However, I can't agree with the Lib Dems position on the Euro, Crime and Punishment, Immigration or Defence.

They've talked about canceling our order for Typhoon Tranche 3, but when you look in their manifesto, they only mention Tranche 3B (Tranche 3 is now split into two parts, with the first ordered). They claim this will save £510m in a few years time, but without access to the contracts and the onerous penalty clauses, where does this figure come from? Also, wouldn't it make more sense to buy these aircraft and re-sell them onto the Omanis (who are very interested) and make a profit?

Their policy on the Trident Replacement is unfortunately not fully formed. Gordon made an excellent point that if the Lib Dems want to switch to a Air or Surface launched deterrent, they'll need to build many more warheads than we have at the moment, leading to more nuclear re-armament.

The immigration policy is massively un-costed and not fully explained. Afterall, if we don't know how many people are illegally in this country how can we check their claim they've been here for ten years? Let alone beginning to understand how much it will cost us to house these 'new' arrivals.

I can't in all good conscience suggest a vote for the Lib Dems. I actually hope they do very well in this election, move up to the official opposition and start understanding what being in power would require. I believe their policies would mature and they will one day soon be in a position to move into government. But not at this election.


I'm trying hard to keep the tone of this piece positive but with Labour it's increasingly difficult. I believe in the importance of benefits to those who need them. I believe that the NHS is an excellent system of health care (maybe not the best, but certainly a long way from the worst). I respect the increased share of government spending both Health and Education have received. I think in some areas there have been improvements. But these improvements need to be coloured with what they have done which hasn't work and what Labour have failed to do in the last 13 years.

I can't believe that of the £700 Bn of Government spending, there is nothing that can be cut. I can't believe Labour's position that the Government IS the economy. I get very angry about Labour's treatment of our incredible servicemen and women. Almost no matter what else Labour's failings, it has been their demand that the Forces do so much more with less funding and equipment that has rankled. As a result people have died. Almost nothing else a Government does will directly kill people. In this area Labour are unelectable.

However, they believe their strength is with the economy. And I can't fault them for bailing out the banks, the system needed to be propped up to ward off far worse events. Gordon talks of the dangers of removing the stimulus he's used to boost the economy. It comes to 0.1% of GDP. Other, more prudent countries have been able to stimulate their economies far more than that, because they saved money in the good times. Labour accuse the Tories of not understanding Keynesian Economics, but it is they who failed the first lesson: Spending is Counter-Cyclical. It doesn't just rise in the bad times, but has to fall in the good. Simply Labour ensured that when the worst recession in living memory came around, the UK was in the worst possible shape to deal with it.

Labour have had 13 years to shape the country as they see fit. A vote for them is a vote for a stagnant, government led economy. It's a vote for more dead servicemen and women. It's a vote for fear.

This, obviously, brings me to the last party on the list. Some would argue that the only reason to vote Tory is because the other parties, as shown above, are unelectable. I disagree. The Tories have actually run a campaign of hope, rather than fear. Sure, there were the broadsides at the risks of a Hung Parliament but these were the minority rather than the rule.

The Tories don't have a recent record that they can be judged on, unlike Labour. Their policies have to be workable and sensible, unlike the Lib Dems and the smaller parties. Their proposal to ensure that only the richest families pay the grossly unfair inheritance tax will cost the country roughly £500 m next year. This is about 0.3% of the total deficit, or 0.7% of our current debt repayments (Yes, thanks to Labour we are now spending £45 Bn on interest on our debt, much more than the Defence Budget).

The Tories haven't stated how they are going to cut the debt (not the deficit, that's just borrowing less, rather than starting to save). There's a very good reason for this. They're not actually in Government, they don't have access to the full Treasury. They don't know exactly where the Government are spending their £700 Bn. They can't say what they would cut or not, because they don't know where the Government isn't getting value for money. Labour do have access to this data and have refused to say what they would do. They know the Tories are going to have to cut, because they can see directly what a state the economy is in.

The Tories have indicated how they want to go about cutting the debt. They have proposed to not raise the rate of NI, a simple tax on jobs. Labour want to spend that money in Government, the Tories want to leave it in the economy. The Tories have said they'll put an end to this new culture of "Benefits for Life". I believe, based on the work at the Centre of Social Justice, that they'll succeed in reforming the Benefits system, delivering help to those who need it, but removing help from those who are just lazy. They'll change the system so that work is economically advantageous, rather than the situation at the moment where someone working more hours can lead to less money in their pocket. They'll change the fact that a couple can't live together more than 3 days a week to bring their children up together without losing some of their benefits.

There is a lot wrong with this country. There is a lot that's right with this country. The Tories have set out how they will protect and reinforce the things that are right, stepping back and letting teachers do their jobs; helping the NHS. They have set out where they will change what is wrong: Benefits Culture; Policemen fighting crime with one hand tied behind their back filling in forms.

There are a lot of reasons to vote against the Lib Dems and Labour tomorrow. But there are many reasons to vote for the Conservatives. A strong New Tory government will be in a position to start undoing some of the damage Labour has done, whilst protecting the things that are working in this country.

Tomorrow, you'll have to make a decision. Before you write that cross, hesitate for a moment and think abut what will be best for the country next week, next year and in the future. Good Luck.

Facepalm Mk II

Actually, this one is funnier:

Brown makes Britain an international Laughing Stock

I've had a look at what impact Brown has had in the International Press. Each of these images comes from the front web page of an international newspaper.

Thanks to Brown Britain is being mocked in Dubai, Italy, France, Argentina, the US and Singapore. And that's just the first six places I looked!

I've got no idea what "Un Disastro quella bigotta" means, but it sounds to sums up the situation perfectly!

Isn't The Mirror missing something?

Image taken at 1300BST.

Dave winning on Twitter

Current trends on Twitter, with ten minutes to go:

Spoiling Political Scrapbook's Attack on Shaun Bailey

Political Scrapbook appears to be trying to attack My Generation/ a charity run by the Tory PPC for Hammersmith at the next election (A Mr Shaun Bailey).

The scope of their attack appears to be this annual report of the charity.

I assume at the moment, that this will take the form of the Charity receiving £35,110 from Gifts and Donations, with £10,904 spent on Management and Administration, with only £5,740 spent on Direct Charitable expenditure.

I've also had a look at the 2009 accounts which lists the following:

"Incoming resources from generated funds: Voluntary income: £58,572"
"Total Charitable Expenditure: £58,572"

EDIT (13:22 21/4/2010): This was only Restricted Funds, Total Charitable Spending was £116,000

Looks like once the Charity was set up, it got a lot more efficient at spending the donors money on actual Charity works.

I assume PS's attack is based in this very old post.

EDIT: (13:24 21/4/2010): I assume the attack will come through the "high" wages paid by the Charity, totaling £10,904 in 2007 and £52,199 in 2009. It appears this salary is paid to the Chief Operations Officer and the Operations Manager, along with the Part-Time Project Co-ordinator, Administrator and Youth Worker.

Assuming that this is 4.5 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) workers, that works out at less than £15k each, not exactly a high salary for people running a Charity.

For reference, the Salary of the CEO of WWF (another Charity) has salary and benefits of over $250,000.

EDIT: (16:17 21/4/2010) This whole thing was probably kicked off by this article in The Times. Basically, the Charity has donated £15,952 without any records of where it is. The tone of the article suggests it's a case of bad accounting (as you'd expect from a Charity that increases its donations nearly ten-fold in two years), rather than fraud. That article also mentions Joanne Cash in a similar context (she used the word "Charitable" to describe a social action project run and funded by her Conservative Association) but there doesn't seem to be any financial allegations.

EDIT: (10:44 22/4/2010) No sign of anything from Political Scrapbook. Maybe they've realised there's not actually much in the Annual Reports worth reporting on.

EDIT: (16:34 22/4/2010) Looks like Political Scrapbook have finally got around to releasing their attack . As expected they're claiming that the amounts used for administration are far too high. This is principally around the 2008 expenses, when £76,657 was spend on "Administration". Persumably, we're supposed to feel that this is money that has been creamed off into Shaun's pockets.

Well, let's have a look at exactly where that money was spent. This photo was taken directly from this annual report.

Despite their 'subtle' suggestion that Mr Bailey has been creaming money towards himself, it appears that the two biggest parts of the admin spend were "rent" at nearly £23k and salaries at £28k (Assuming this is split between the 3 FTEs identified in the report, they're pulling down a salary of £10k each). This doesn't seem to be gouging to me.

Ah ha! (you might say). But those nice people quoted a professor saying that Charities should only spend 15% of their income on Admin.

Charity Facts also says:

"What is an acceptable figure?
This is a difficult question to answer. The structure of the organisation, the nature of the work it undertakes and it's accounting conventions will all play a role in this. Also, good management typically costs more than poor management, so seeking to reduce costs in this area may ultimately be counter-productive as talented staff move on."

I'm sure also that a Charity pulling in £100k will have much higher overheads as a percentage than one pulling in £100 million.

There is another local Charity, which I have no reason to believe doesn't do sterling work, called The Hammersmith and Fulham Refugee Forum. In 2006 they recieved £83,492 in Grants (and £50 in Donations). They spent £87,099 on Administration (£47,570 on Salaries). (source)

NOTE: This is a work in progress, I'm going to react to Political Scrapbook's attacks as and when they actually happen (or, at the moment, before they do!)


Disclaimer: I don't know Shaun Bailey, I've never met him. I'm not a member of any poltical party. I'm not working in Conservative HQ (or anywhere else for that matter). I don't run a Charity, donate to anyone in particular. Any questions can be sent to the email address over there --->

Crap Photoshop of the Day Mk III

Anyone wants to steal this, or any other images (and do them properly), please feel free. Minimal credit required on my part (though not none, i'm a vain, vain walrus).

Crap Photoshop of the Day MkII

TeeHee...

Reading the Labour Manifesto - Chapter 1

I decided to have a look at the Labour manifesto, to see if there was anything entertaining to see. Of course, looking at this election's would be pointless, so instead I thought I'd have a look what they said in 2005.

I've included a couple of pictures below I pulled from here:
As you can see, I didn't get very far into it before I started spotting some hilarious predictions.

Apparently, under Labour the country won't go "back to Boom and Bust". Where we were fourth in the world in terms of GDP, we've now slipped to 6th, behind both France and Germany (I could have sworn that we were "better placed" than them before this recession!).

It's now 2010 and Employment certainly isn't full, not even with Labour's "Economically Inactive" tricks.

Have a look at this next snippet:

Inflation at 2%? Over the past year it's varied from +5% to +1% and it's now back over +3%. That doesn't seem like something that Labour are doing so well on.

Even better is Labour promising to "Borrow only to invest" and keeping Net Debt at a stable and prudent level. Well, National Debt was £400Bn in 2005. It's now over £951Bn and rising by half a Billion pounds a day (Unfortunately I'm not joking, see my other posts for what else we could buy with this sort of money).

See here for a live tracker:



I'm only a few pages into their last manifesto and on these fairly basic promises Labour didn't just fail, they failed so catastrophically they've potentially ruined the countries finances for vast majority of the foreseeable future.

Would you really trust the man who set your house on fire to put the fire out?

£12m Labour donor's company sign the Tory NI pledge letter

I was highly amused to read this post from Left Foot Forward.

Apparently, some of the people who signed the letter pointing out that Labour's planned NI rise might not be a good idea (not surprising, seeing as it will cost at least 140,000 jobs!) have donated to the Tories.

If you include their companies, this comes to the total of £2.5 million pounds.

However, one of the signatories was Justin King. He's the CEO of a small grocer called Sainsburys. One of his major shareholders is a chap called David Sainsbury, that's Lord David Sainsbury of Turville to you and I. Him and his family control about 15% of the company. Effectively, he's Justin King's boss!

Over the years he's been a great donor to Labour. If you trawl through the Electoral Commission's list of labour donors, you'll find he appears a few times.

In total, he's donated a phenomenal £12,582,808 to the Labour Party since 2002. Over £4 million of this was in 2008 and 2009. That's about 12% of Labour donations over those two years, much more than Lord Ashcroft has donated to the Tory party. Compared to this, the £2.5m donated to the Tories is just small change.

Why didn't Left Foot Forward mention this when they were castigating the Tory donors?

Even Labour's biggest donors know that this NI rise is bloody stupid.