Author: johnredwood

The Environment Agency has issued a topical paper. Entitled “River maintenance pilots. Findings Report” the EA this January tells us how and why the pilots to dredge, weed and cleanse 9 pilot areas have not worked well. This was something initiated by Ministers in the wake of the Somerset levels disaster, when Ministers required the Agency to do more to increase the capacity of rivers in areas prone to flooding.

The Report tells us these pilots have told farmers and landowners more of what the EA does do, and told them how to carry out work “in an environmentally sensitive way”. They say that some 61 km of river maintenance work has been done or is planned as a result.

However, they also report that in 2 areas no work was carried out. There were objections from landowners and farmers in pilot areas  because they were restricted to working on only 20% of the river on their land. Several reported that because there had been no dredging for so long there was too much silt to remove in a normal private sector maintenance  operation. Rules on methods of clearing and disposal of silt are worrying, complex  and expensive for landowners.

The Report demonstrates that the EA remains opposed to much dredging. The pilot areas were areas where they had discontinued dredging themselves, and where they did not plan to reinstate their dredging programmes. They then impeded the private sector’s wish to see these areas dredged by offering no cash and help, and or by issuing strict guidelines about how to do the work, and or by limiting the work to only one fifth of the affected river. As a result many farmers and other landowners concluded they could not do sufficient work to improve the position, were under some duress over how to do the work, and had a large inherited expensive and difficult task thanks to the EA’s abandoning dredging some time ago.

This was a masterly performance of Yes Minister. Elizabeth Truss should call them in and ask them to do better in future.

Some of the bloggers who write to my site condemn the general outbreak of politically correct speech and writing. Some might like  to break the rules of modern discourse by saying disobliging things about groups or types of people just for the frisson of it. One of the worst aspects of my job in moderating this site is taking out unpleasant generalisations whilst preserving the sense of the argument of the incoming contribution.

I do so not because I have lamely fallen prey to politically correct speech myself, but because I think observing courtesies to others and avoiding harsh generalisations is a good thing for society and for democratic debate. Under the modern rules of  political correctness  differential considerations apply. It is thought unacceptable to make harsh generalisations or issue sweeping criticisms of most minorities and all vulnerable groups. On the other hand it is often  thought acceptable to condemn in general and  unflattering terms the “rich”, members of mainstream parties, senior politicians or holders of other offices of power and influence, types of business, and people with certain views (“climate change deniers”, “Eurosceptics”).

Some of this shows a healthy democracy. The governed should be free to criticise the government, the person in an average  job should be free to criticise the bosses, political opponents need some latitude in condemning their rivals. Some is itself over the top. A fair and open society needs to avoid making exceptions or villains of any group or type of people living within it, other than criminals.Some of it is potentially a libel based on prejudice and lies.

Let us take the vexed case of immigration. Many people and two political parties want it reduced. It should be possible in a democracy to make the case for controlled immigration, and to set out criteria for choosing who might come for jobs and citizenship to our country. What is not  acceptable is to attribute a series of negative characteristics to groups of potential migrants with a view to creating tensions between communities and groups of people in our society.

In the case of global warming it is important we challenge the lazy and politically correct statements that all so often dominate this debate. It should not be offensive to anyone that some people wish to challenge the assumptions of global warming theory, as good scientists regularly test other scientific theories to see if they are right or if some other model provides a better explanation and predictions of the future.

The latest rise in fares reminds us how the dire financial and operational performance of Network Rail imposes a big financial burden on commuters.

We have a  very popular railway – a set out routes and train services into and out of our main cities – where overcrowding and overcharging go hand in hand, as people ride to work standing. We also  have an underused railway, with many long distance and cross country routes offering deeply discounted fares to fill some of the many empty seats available daily.

Broadly speaking, the working age population pay the high fares to go to work, or to go to leisure events at week-ends on special trains, whilst leisure travellers  are more common in the discount seats during the day.

The first task of the railway should  be to get capacity more into line with demand. We clearly need more trains into and out of main cities at busy times. That requires lighter trains, better signals, and some additional bypass track. We need  shorter trains on many other routes. I have written here before about the largely empty trains I sometimes use to get to the main  Northern cities first thing in the morning.

Selling more tickets for the less busy trains would be great.The railway does not seem to understand its customer base well. As an occasional user of long distance trains I regularly am offered  promotion tickets to go to a Northern city. The truth is I have to visit these cities for my work, so it is not ticket price determining  how often I go. If I am going to be attracted to go for leisure or pleasure, then the ticket promotion needs to  be linked to some other offer or attraction.

It was good to hear from the Agency at last on the Today programme. It was perhaps unsurprising that its Chairman was unavailable to be interviewed, and left the job to his CEO. I seem to remember in my days as Chairman of companies an important part of the Chairman’s role was to field any  difficult interviews with shareholders and public. This Chairman not only likes to stay on holiday during a crisis that his organisation has to handle, but then shirks the duty of explaining when he does get back to the office.

The CEO made one important statement that I support. He said clearly on more than one occasion that where policy has to choose between protecting people from flood, and protecting a natural habitat, they will choose to protect the people. The follow up question is why haven’t they followed this principle in more cases.

He also said that dredging can be helpful, though he declined to endorse it in all cases. He said they have undertaken £20m of dredging in the last two years. A substantial part of that is dredging the two main rivers of the Somerset levels after the dreadful floods there, following Ministerial insistence. They had not thought dredging suitable prior to the floods. The EA has always refused my requests for dredging the Loddon in my area, claiming it would  not be helpful.

When Parliament returns I will table some more questions on the large EA budget and their priorities. There is no evidence that they do regard dredging as an important contributor to flood relief in most cases, and every evidence that they short change the dredging budget. Nor do they seem to do much weed removal and bank improvement in my areas, which is probably typical. They also need to examine the resilience of pumps and electricity sub stations, in the wake of the vulnerability of the York system.

The public expect considerably more flood relief for the huge sums the EA consumes each year. I will be writing to them again with my wish list for my area.

I saw Ben  Stokes hit the fastest ever century in Lord’s Test against New Zealand on May 24th last year. It was a thrilling innings to watch. It means  we all should  know he can be the most powerful and sustained hitter of the ball in modern cricket. It took him just 85 balls to reach 100.

In the Second test against South Africa in Cape Town Ben  Stokes has surpassed his brilliance at Lord’s. Hitting the fastest ever double hundred by an England test batsman, he rushed past 200 in just 163 deliveries.

Well done, Ben. You have lit up test cricket and England with such an amazing display.

I gave up on the Today programme last week with its Guest editors.  The Guest editor for business made his main item the first day an interview with a woman running a knitting circle for the digital generation who were fed up with being on line and wanted to make something. I wanted a briefing on the state of the world’s economies and markets, as other major countries did not have a bank holiday on Monday so there was real business and market news to catch up with. Usually of course Today’s regular editors wish to turn most major business interviews into some special commentary on the EU referendum, wrongly assuming all company heads will favour staying in. The editors seem quite unaware of the many attractions to business of being out.

The media say they are now doing a great job on presenting business to the public, thanks to their Dragon’s Den, Apprentice  and similar competitive frameworks. Far from following business, these are reality shows about possible future small businesses and new ventures that have been artificially stimulated by the powers of early  tv exposure. There is little proper business news coverage. The BBC does not usually want to present the profits, investment programmes and product launches of most companies. Most interviews are confined to a few heads of well known large businesses in the public eye with many direct customers. They are rarely required to defend their results, or to explain shareholder disappointments. The most aggressive interviews are when their company or industry is said to have caused a national problem – food companies are attacked for people being fat, energy companies are criticised for low income customers not having enough money for all the energy they want. Sometimes the business leader is invited to attack or support the government of the day, however sensibly reluctant they may be to be dragged into UK politics.

As a result of the lack of BBC coverage of the importance of business and what it does, we have low standards of public information on the scale, contribution and decisions of business.  A piece on knitting circles won’t hack it. That just leaves the BBC at the foot of the business guillotine waiting for the next excuse to monster a company.

Yesterday saw the end of the disastrous season of Guest editors. Let me contrast the two crucial interviews on Saturday’s programme.

The first was with the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency. The second was with the CEO of BP.  Both were worthy guests. Many listeners would have crucial questions they wish to put to them both. Both of them required discussion of money as an important part of the debate.

A professional interviewer took on the Environment Agency. As you might expect he gave a much more professional interview, with more bite and more discussion of the contentious issues. Lord Browne, a clever and successful businessman turned politician interviewed a successor to his job as CEO of BP. It was a pathetic performance.

The first requirement of a good interview is to ask about the contentious matters that worry the audience. John Humphreys lighted on three of the most important things that annoy people about the current Environment Agency. He raised their misleading statement about the absence of their Chairman at the  height of the flood crisis. He probed on how little dredging the  EA does, leaving rivers blocked or with restricted flow. He put the point that the EA seems to regard habitats and “natural state” as more important than protecting riverside residents from flood.

Lord Browne did not ask about anything that a worried listener wanted to know. BP is one of the most widely held shares in the UK. Many listeners have pension funds, insurance investments or small private holdings in BP. The low oil price and the decline in profitability leads directly to fears for the sustainability of the dividend which is crucial to the share price. There was no question on the dividend. BP was an important pioneer of the N0rth Sea oilfield. Some think that at current oil prices we face accelerated closure of the remaining N0rth Sea fields, leading to further damage to our oil output and associated industrial and engineering activity. There was no question on the future of the UK’s oil province. Many employees of BP are worried about their jobs against the present background of much reduced cashflows from oil. There was no question about how much cost cutting BP should do to respond to the collapse in price of its main asset and product. The CEO of BP has traditionally been paid huge sums of money to reflect the scale of BP’s cashflow and profits. Will the CEO this year take a lead by cutting his pay substantially to reflect the much worse financial prospects? His pay was not mentioned.

The second requirement  of a good interview is to be well  briefed on the detail, to be able to respond to any dodgy defences put up  by interviewees. John Humphreys was reasonably briefed on the aims and requirements laid on the EA, but clearly had no brief on the finances. He was told by the EA that it had spent £20 m on dredging, but that probably was over a two year period. He did not immediately point out that was a tiny sum, under 1% of EA spending over a two year period, and tiny in relation to the number of rivers that need attention. He did not even ask how many miles or river you can dredge for just £20 m, and how many miles or river the Agency is responsible for. He forgot that much of the dredging was the result of Ministerial intervention demanding dredging of the Somerset rivers after the disastrous inundation of the Somerset levels under EA policy.  Nor did he get the apology the EA should make over the misinformation about the Chairman, though he did press the issue.

Lord Browne got through the whole interview with BP without mentioning or questioning a single figure. He praised the CEO’s attempt to answer the question of what will happen to the oil price, as he got through his own stint as BP’s CEO   refusing to answer the most basic question affecting the business! The CEO of BP of course need a strong and clear view of the oil price, as all else the business does and plans depends on that single variable. If oil is going back up to $100 a barrel soon then they need a  big exploration and development programme. If it is staying around $30=40 most of the options are uneconomic for new development. BP’s decisions on how much investment to commit to new activity will be important to jobs and activity in the UK. He asked questions as if he did not know the company, or wished to conceal anything too difficult. There was an exchange of management jargon about reorganisation without Browne asking why there was need of reorganisation and what the reorganisation was likely to achieve.

When interviewing about money matters can we have some basic questions asked well. How much does it cost? What do you get for the money? How much money have you got? How could you spend it better? Instead we had a lame question to the EA about how much more they might need, and no questions to BP about how they will get by with reduced oil income.

Lord Mandelson was always keen to require iron discipline in New Labour when he was one of the small clique in charge. Today he is now an enthusiast for rebellion, urging modern Labour MPs to disagree with their Leader and to remain true to the  flexible pro European and pro military intervention stances  of Blairism. This sad volte face is not surprising. Lord Mandelson would argue that an MP only owes loyalty to his party and its Leader when they are “doing the right thing”. The problems with that proposition are twofold. The first is who gets to decide what is the right thing? The second is, can it ever be the right thing in a democracy to seek to prevent the official opposition opposing for good reason?

There are two defining issues in Lord Mandelson’s mind where he wishes Mr Corbyn to  be more Blair like to justify his  support and recommendation. The first is the UK’s willingness to undertake  military action in the Middle East against regimes or Islamic groupings it dislikes. The second is the UK’s requirement to accept any new law, regulation or treaty amendment from the EU that the EU institutions and other member states may propose. In  both cases Lord Mandelson argues that to be a serious party of government Labour needs to be nearer the centre, which he claims is in support of more military intervention, and in support of more EU intervention in our lives. I suggest to him that in  both cases this is a misreading of the public mood. I do not recall the Conservatives under Mr Cameron campaigning in last year’s General election to take military action in the Middle East, nor stressing the need for more EU entanglements. Indeed, part of the attraction of the Conservative case was the combination of a negotiation to remove EU powers, and an In/Out referendum so we can leave if the new relationship remains poor.

The issue of military intervention is a crucial one. A good argument can be made to say that Tony Blair lost substantial support amongst voters as well as within the Labour party by the decision to go into Iraq, and by the way he, Campbell and Mandelson presented the case for such intervention. Parliament does need to debate the consequences of the substantial interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and the interventions of our allies in Syria, and to ask if past military interventions have been helpful. Mr Corbyn and some other Labour figures have a tradition of doubting the value and wisdom of such actions, which is shared by an important part of the electorate. Why must they now suppress their views and doubts, and switch to the pro intervention side? How do they keep their existing support, and reassure people in the middle ground, if they have to defend all that was done by past Labour governments in Iraq and Afghanistan? Arguably Mr Corbyn was too kind and weak in allowing Labour MPs a free vote on the Syrian war. His decision to allow such a free vote meant Parliament was not going to provide any serious challenge or check on the current government’s wish to pursue military action.

The Labour party’s position on Europe is even more shaming. Several of the Corbyn  group of rebels from the Mandelson era did not go along with the endless transfer of powers and monies to the EU from the UK, which was brave of them.  Under Labour’s Opposition leader in the last Parliament the Labour party was whipped to make sure the government could never lose a vote to prevent some new piece of EU law going through, or to grant  some additional financial charge on the UK. Most Labour MPs were advised  not to turn up to EU debates, or were briefed to come in and treat them all as “tory split” issues, so making it impossible for Parliament to have a mainstream critical examination of anything European with the chance of a vote which the government might lose given Conservative rebels.

The advent of The Corbyn group at the head of the Labour party promised a more principled stance, with proper opposition in Parliament. Unfortunately it look as if the Leadership has given in to the Blairite tendency and decided  not to oppose  more EU after all. In opposition the Conservatives spoke and voted against Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon and other EU centralising measures. Because Labour’s majority was so large we never won a vote but at least we fulfilled the need to push the government to explain and to battle for these matters. Labour it appears do  not wish to oppose despite the majority being smaller.

Lord Mandelson was wrong on the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which he supported and which did great damage. He was wrong on the Euro. He is now wrong on how the Labour party should conduct itself in opposition. A loyal opposition should always support our military and be united in support of military action when our homeland requires swift and strong action, but it should not allow any military intervention anywhere without Parliamentary challenge. Above all, a loyal opposition should always be willing to stand up for the rights of the UK electors to see matters settled in their own Parliament, not spirited away to the EU. Lord Mandelson’s policy proposals do not look popular to me.