Archive for Liberal Democrats

The European Fuel Quality Directive

May 21, 2013 at 10:09 pm · Filed under Alberta, Liberal Democrats, Environment, Canadian politics, British politics ·Tagged , , , , , ,

The following is the substantive part of an email I sent to Norman Baker a couple of days ago:

Dear Norman,

………….

I should have written to you about the Fuel Quality Directive before now.  After all, I am in a unique position as both a member of the Lewes Liberal Democrats, whose MP is responsible for Britain’s vote in the EU on the FQD’s implementation, and a resident of Alberta, home of the tar-sands industry lobbying against implementation.

In 2011, when The Guardian newspaper started reporting that you were going to vote against implementation, I simply did not believe what I was reading. Damian Carrington, who was taking the lead on the issue, is not a journalist whose accuracy I trust (I note in today’s Guardian that, despite reporting on the tar-sands issue for several years, Carrington still thinks that Canada has a president). At first, I treated the reports as so much anti-coalition propaganda, because I could not imagine that you would consider voting against implementation.

I was wrong, but by the time I realized there was substance to the reports, I also knew you were listening to environmental lobbyists, and when you abstained on the vote on implementation I thought you had listened, but were probably constrained from voting for implementation by a promise made to Stephen Harper by David Cameron.  Since it is reported that you may be intending to vote against implementation now, clearly I was wrong again.

These are weak excuses for not having lobbied you on the issue myself, and even though I know that you have spoken with Dr James Hanson, who is a million times more qualified than I am to put the argument for FQD implementation, I want you to know that I think you are mistaken, and are overly influenced by the Canadian and oil industry lobbyists.

If I understand your position correctly (and I’m not sure that I do), you do not want the FQD implemented until it includes all unconventional crudes, not just tar-sands.  Your critics say this will simply push the FQD into the long grass, which is exactly what the oil industry lobbyists want. You deny that this will happen.

I do not know enough about the way the EU works to know whether a no vote by Britain will result in implementation delayed or indefinitely postponed, but two things are obvious to me:

Firstly, the FQD already includes provision for review in 2015, allowing the other unconventional crudes to be added. This undermines your argument, but your only reply is that you have ‘no faith’ in the review.  Why?

Secondly, it is very clear to me, from here in Alberta, that a no vote hands the Canadian Government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers a propaganda coup.  This may seem unimportant compared with the substantive task of reducing the carbon content of European fuel, but it is not. Canada has no realistic plan for reducing its carbon emissions, and no intention of putting one in place.  It would have to close down the tar-sands industry, and nobody in Canada wants to talk about that – and I mean nobody.  There is an air of unreality about most climate change discussion in Canada that is probably best described as ‘the view from Planet Exxon Mobil’, which infects even environmental organisations. So, for example, we have the environmental group Pembina Institute which does good work on some issues, but on the tar-sands talks about ‘responsible development’.  Dr Hansen will have explained to you that there is no responsible development of the tar-sands; the only responsible course of action is no development at all. 350 org has no local groups in Canada.

There are good reasons for the silence about the elephant in the room.  No Canadian, however concerned about climate change, wants his or her house and pension fund to devalue, or to lose his or her job. In the federal election of 2007 the Liberal Party presented Canadians with a ‘green shift’ manifesto which would have used carbon taxes to shift development away from the tar-sands and into green industries. Even then, the Liberal leader Stéphane Dion denied it would prevent tar-sands development, although it certainly would have done. The ‘green shift’ was attacked, not just by the Conservatives, but by the New Democrat Party, who objected to the cost to middle-class families; not mentioning that their preferred option, of a carbon trading scheme, would only have been cost free if it was also as ineffective as Europe’s has been.

The ‘green shift’ was rejected by the electorate. The Liberal party has been very careful since then never to say anything sensible about climate change, and it was at that point Canada adopted the perspective of Planet Exxon Mobil.

To give one example: Thomas Mulcair, leader of the official federal opposition (NDP), visited Washington in March this year, where he compared unsustainable development to slavery, but found himself unable to say whether or not he opposed the Keystone XL pipe-line, even though it is as good an example of unsustainable development as can be found anywhere on Earth.

To give another: Justin Trudeau, newly elected leader of the Liberals, has supported tar-sands development, saying it should be defended when foreign critics call for a halt.  The Liberal website, nonetheless, states that Canada’s energy policy should be sustainable.

The governing politicians of Canada and the Canadian journalists who support them, use rhetoric that makes it clear that they see the emissions issue as purely one of greenwash. They tend to assume that foreign governments are as cynical as themselves – only paying lip service to the issue as a sop to a tiresome green lobby. I have no doubt that is how Stephen Harper sees David Cameron (perhaps rightly), and possibly you Norman.  A no vote will confirm him in that view.

Moreover, it is possible the vote will take place before President Obama has made a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, sending the wrong message at the wrong time to the USA about the importance Europe places on the issue.

Your advisors may have emphasized the importance of Britain’s friendship with Canada, but true friends are truthful with each other, and in the long run it will not help Canada if it is allowed to continue its delusory path. As you know, Nicholas Stern has recently warned of the risk of ‘stranded assets’, and Canada is at risk of becoming The Country of Stranded Assets. Honest speaking about the tar-sands industry, and a vote in favour of implementation of the FQD,  would be a friendlier act to Canada than giving in to its lobbyists. …………..

There is one point I wish I had included in the email, which is that it is a very strange situation, when a Liberal Democrat MP expresses a lack of faith in the ability of the EU to do what it says it is going to do (carry out a review of the FQD in 2015), but no such scepticism is being expressed by Greenpeace.

Leave a Comment

Shall I stay or shall I go?

March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am · Filed under British politics, Civil Liberties, Liberal Democrats ·Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

I’m not very happy about being a Liberal Democrat at the moment, but despite that I’ve renewed my membership for another year.

My unhappiness is for the same reasons as every one else, but especially the support for secret courts followed by the resignations of Jo Shaw and Dinah Rose, and the benefit caps, but I’m not thrilled about the Rennard allegations, the weirdness of Mike Hancock and David Ward, or the Huhne/Pryce trial either.

On the other hand, although I’d voted LD since the eighties, I joined because of Iraq and then stayed because I thought the Party stood a good chance of power in a coalition government. I thought that would be a good thing, because whether with the Conservatives or Labour, it would rein in populist authoritarians  in either party and shift politics to a more liberal centre. The fact is that my dream has come true. However unhappy I am about some of the things done by this government, I’m quite sure I’d be a lot more unhappy if the economic crisis was being managed by a Labour or Conservative majority government.

But the point of coalition government is lost if the Liberal Democrats themselves become Blairite. The fact is that this government can’t do anything without the consent of Nick Clegg, but he chooses some odd places to draw lines in the sand. Why, if he could breach the coalition agreement over boundary changes, could he not refuse to countenance the benefit caps, which have nothing to do with reducing the welfare bill and everything to do with pandering to the maliciousness of the Tory tabloids?  Why the secret courts?

Another reason for staying is Mike Thornton.  I don’t know him, but he strikes me as typical of the kind of hard-working decent local government politician I’ve known and admired in the UK for many years. I was rooting for him during the election campaign.  He was obviously superior to the other candidates and it was great that he won. I also think Norman Baker is a great MP for Lewes, and  I’m keen on campaigning for him at the next general election, as I did for the last one.

Frankly, there is just too much happening in my life at the moment to spare the time to think through the issues.  When my physical health is better, and when I’ve got our house sold, I’ll pay some serious attention to whether or not I want to remain a LD, but it would help if we entered the next election campaign with a new leader.

Leave a Comment

Chris Huhne and Shale Gas

May 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm · Filed under British politics, Economics, Environment, Liberal Democrats

I am neither for, nor against, the exploitation of Britain’s shale gas.  I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I think the issue is more complicated than the way it was put by Chris Huhne in The Guardian this week.

There’s the question of whether shale gas is a lower carbon fuel than coal.  There have been two studies by Cornell university which contradicted each other, one showing that shale gas had  higher greenhouse gas emissions than coal, the other that the emissions were half.

This matters.  Firstly,  there’s James Hanson’s argument that to prevent dangerous climate change, we cannot afford to take all the fossil fuels out of the ground. Therefore it makes sense to leave those with the highest carbon content, which means leaving the unconventional oils and coal. So the difference between a carbon content higher than coal and one half of coal, is the difference between leaving it in the ground, and exploiting it.

The level of emissions also affects the viability of using CCS, that is carbon capture and sequestration. In his article Chris Huhne advocates the use of CCS with shale gas.  So far, pilot CCS projects such as the one at Sleipner  seem to be showing that CCS is possible but expensive.  It is only economically viable for fuel sources with relatively low CO2 content (at Sleipner the natural gas has 9.2%), and in combination with a carbon tax. So, if shale gas actually has higher emissions than coal, then it is probably not viable, even with CCS.

Chris Huhne’s article did not mention the question of water use and possible pollution of aquifers.  Possibly he accepts the reassurances of the energy industry on this issue. Personally, I don’t know who to believe. On the one hand, I accept that the campaign against shale gas in North America is characterised more by hyperbole than hard facts, but I’m equally skeptical about the statements from the energy industry.

What concerns me most is the way we seem to be rushing to exploit our shale gas reserves.  It’s not as if the gas is going anywhere, and getting this decision wrong could have serious environmental effects for the UK. I’d like to see a slower and more considered approach; preferably a public enquiry to report on the viability of exploiting the reserves, economic, environmental and otherwise.

Leave a Comment

An orange is not a banana.

April 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm · Filed under British politics, Civil Liberties, Liberal Democrats

Like so many other Liberal-Democrats, I was dismayed by yesterday’s announcement to extend email snooping. I checked out the story on the BBC, Guardian, Daily Telegraph and the Independent before I was convinced it was not an April Fool’s joke.

I’m not comforted by Lynne Featherstone’s patronising email,  I’ll put it this way: If I am allergic to oranges, chocolate and bananas, I’m not going to eat an orange just because I’m told it is not a banana or a Cadbury’s flake.

So, being reassured by Lynne Featherstone that the proposed legislation does not set up a database (chocolate), or give access to the content of emails (banana) does nothing to placate me.  I don’t see why GCHQ should have access to any private communications data without being required to show cause.  I don’t agree with the powers that it already has under RIBA, to monitor communications without a warrant, and I don’t agree to them being extended.

I’m very troubled by this issue, because it leads me to question why I stay in the Liberal Democrats.  I care about social justice, but if that were all I’d be in the Labour Party.  However, I’ve always been distrustful of the authoritarianism of Labour, which came to the fore after 9/11. I’m a member of the Liberal Democrats because I trust it on civil liberties issues.  If I’m wrong about that, then what is the point?

Leave a Comment

Kanadischen Klimabomben

February 26, 2012 at 12:14 am · Filed under Alberta, British politics, Canadian politics, Environment, Liberal Democrats ·Tagged , , , ,

Austria was one of the countries which voted for implementation of the Fuel Quality Directive, whereas the UK only abstained.  If passed the FQD would effectively put an import  ban on Canadian tar sands oil into Europe.

The environment minister for Austria is Niki Berlakovich, of the Austrian People’s Party, which has a right of centre ideology. After the vote his spokesperson described the Canadian tar sands as “kanadischen Klimabomben“ — “Canadian Climate-bombs”, and described oil sands and oil shale as the energy sources of yesterday.

This is not a party political issue.  It is purely to do with Britain and Europe reaching its emission reduction targets, and also with rightly condemning an industry which is dirty and unsustainable and should be closed down.  I’d like to see the British government condemn the tar sands industry in the same forthright terms as Berlakovich.

I’m relieved that Britain abstained rather than vote against implementation.  Now the vote goes to the Council of Ministers, and I very much hope that, at that point, Britain does the right thing.

Leave a Comment

The Fuel Quality Directive (again)

February 23, 2012 at 1:06 am · Filed under Alberta, British politics, Canadian politics, Environment, Liberal Democrats ·Tagged , , , , , , , ,

I am simultaneously a resident of Alberta, home of the tar sands, and a member of Lewes Liberal Democrats.  This unique combination gives me a strong interest in the issue of the implementation of the EU Fuel Quality Directive, which should ban tar sands oil from entering Europe, and Norman Baker’s role, which numerous environmental groups have alleged, has been to secretly aid Canada in its attempts to prevent the ban.

In my opinion the campaign against Norman has been febrile and ill-informed, and I would also apply both of those adjectives to Damian Carrington’s reports in his Guardian blog.

I was particularly amused by Carrington’s grudging approval of the UK government’s donation to the Pembina Institute, which he described as an “anti-tar sands” organisation.  Pembina, based in Calgary, only calls for a moratorium on new tar-sands developments, not for the tar-sands exploitation to end. In fact, Pembina insists that the tar-sands can be made sustainable (against all the evidence).  Essentially it inhabits the same alternative reality as the Canadian and Albertan governments, in which you can have your cake and eat it, exploit tar-sands oil and combat climate change. I can understand why the UK might decide to give Pembina a donation rather than another environmental group.  Pembina’s stance means it  gets listened to occasionally, meaning it can influence issues such as environmental monitoring, whereas the other environmental groups are regarded with horror and contempt on a par with Al Qaeda; but describing Pembina as “anti tar-sands” is either ignorant or delusional.

But I digress.

Norman has answered the allegations against him on his website and in letters to the Guardian, and I am satisfied that there were no secret meetings and there is no conspiracy.  However, I still have some concerns about the UK’s position on the FQD implementation, and Norman’s position in particular.  Norman is critical of the methodology which accords a high rating to tar sands oil, but fails to take into account the high emissions of heavy conventional crudes, such as those from Nigeria, Angola or Venezuela. He states:

 I persuaded the British government to put to our EU partners a system whereby all fossil fuel sources were placed in either a high, medium or low band, with specific values being advocated as and when the detailed information became available. Under my scenario, such a value would be given to Canadian tar sands right away but within this banding arrangement that captured all other fossil fuel sources from day one.

Lush portray this policy as “attempting to kill this legislation by delaying it for years”. Yet my officials at the Department for Transport advise me that a banding system could be up and running within six months to a year. By contrast, if the EU fails to put a system in place now to cover all crudes, it is unlikely that the matter will be revisited for years, and all we will have is a specific value for one source that at the moment barely exists, as far as Europe is concerned.

My problem with Norman’s stance is as follows: T&E is an environmental organisation I trust. In its briefing on the FQD implementation it states that the methodology criticized by Norman, will only be in place until December 2015 at the latest, when it will be reviewed –

The proposals also include the possibility of allowing additional default values for higher GHG intensity conventional sources, once the data has been established and if it is proven to be scientifically warranted. Furthermore, the review will allow existing default values to be adjusted in line with the latest scientific and technical information.

Norman claims that the banding system he proposes would take just six months to put in place. thus saving just two and a half years on the 2015 review. I’m not convinced that is worth arguing for.  Even if little or no Canadian tar sands oil is imported into Europe, the ban, as T&E argue, will have an immediate effect on the perceived viability of tar sands exploitation, and discourage investment.

The environmental groups accuse the British government of conspiring with Canada to kick implementation of the FQD into the long grass. I don’t believe that, and nor do I think that it could do that even if it wanted to. At worst, I  think there may be some muddle in the government’s approach, as evidenced by the donation to the Pembina Institute, and influenced  by our close relationship with Canada, and the degree of investment in the tar-sands by British companies, including RBS, BP, and HSBC.

Nevertheless, I believe it would be better if the UK votes for implementation of the FQD now, and not be responsible for any further delay

Leave a Comment

The Fuel Quality Directive Dispute.

December 8, 2011 at 12:22 am · Filed under Alberta, British politics, Canadian politics, Environment, Liberal Democrats ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am simultaneously a resident of Alberta, home of the horrible tar-sands, and a member of Lewes Liberal Democrats, who has campaigned for Norman Baker.  So, I consider that I’m duty bound to get my head round the barney between Norman and environmentalists, on whether the UK is giving unreasonable support to Canada on implementation of the EU FQD.

The line-up of Norman’s critics appears formidable.  There is Greenpeace, The Co-operative Bank, Bill McKibbon, Zac Goldsmith,  Damian Carrington and, most worryingly, Chris Davies MEP. To that you can add the gamut of Canadian environmental groups and campaigning journalists.

Their criticisms of the Government’s stance on the FQD are multiple.

The first charge is that the British Government has has “secret meetings” with the Canadians. In his blog on 27th November, Damian Carrington alleged that there had been 15 such  ”high level” meetings since September. The document on which this allegation was based can be downloaded from this article in the Canadian online paper The Tyee.

The first point is that there was no secret; there was no leak. The document was obtained by a freedom of information request, by FoE and the Co-op Bank. Secondly, 15 meetings over two months appears a lot, until you see that half of them took place in Canada, and include David Cameron’s visit and meeting with Stephen Harper.  It is common knowledge that the Canadians have been lobbying hard on this issue, and the British High Commissioner in Canada can hardly refuse to listen, and nor can Lord Howell as Foreign and Commonwealth Minister.  It was inevitable that Canada would concentrate its lobbying efforts on the UK, the EU country with which it has the closest relationship. The 15 meetings also have to be put into the context of the extraordinary energy Canada puts in to lobbying for the tar sands.  For example EurActiv reports that between September 2009 and July 2011, Canadian government and oil industry representatives organised more than 110 lobby events in Brussels – over one per week – to promote the tar sands industry.

My conclusion is that the “secret meetings” allegation doesn’t amount to more than an attempt to whip up conspiracy paranoia. An interesting detail of the document is that no Canadian politician or diplomat appears to have had access to either  Norman Baker or Chris Huhne. When Joe Oliver, Canada’s minister of natural resources, visited London, he only got to see Charles Hendry. If the UK was really in cahoots with Canada on the FQD, you would have expected Norman, as the Minister responsible, to have met with the Canadian High Commissioner at least once.

The important question is whether the UK Government is actually supporting Canada’s attempt to get round the FQD. This allegation is more substantial, but the issue is complicated. In his article in Lib-Dem Voice, Norman Baker stated his position:

“Some ‘green’ campaigners want a specific value to Canadian tar sands but only a general default single value to all conventional crudes, despite the fact that the greenhouse gas impacts vary enormously across conventional crudes. Yet there is at present virtually no fuel derived from tar sands in Europe, and they would be in effect ignoring probably 99% of the fossil fuels we use.  I want to use the Fuel Quality Directive to drive down the use of all heavy crudes, not just one source. I simply cannot understand why some environmentalists seem completely uninterested in conventional crudes.”

The green campaigners, for their part, have been rather vague about what they think the UK is doing to promote Canada’s interests, but I can see three reasons why they might be suspicious of the UK’s position.

The first is delay.  Norman Baker says that assigning a value to the heavy conventional crudes could take six months or a year, and he points out, quite correctly, that a negligible amount of Canadian oil is getting into the European supply at the moment, so such a short delay can’t matter. The campaigners whose mouthpiece is Damian Carrington, wedded to their conspiracy theory, think that it is a deliberate delaying tactic that would put off implementation indefinitely. Since they don’t put forward any evidence for why that would happen, it is impossible to judge whether their fears are justified.

The second is Dr James Hansen’s influential view that we can use all the conventional crude oil that is left and still avoid dangerous climate change, as long as we leave the unconventional crudes in the ground, and stop using coal. From that perspective, there is less to be gained from attaching a value to heavy conventional crudes, because we are going to be using them anyway, which may account for the environmental groups’ lack of interest in what Norman Baker is proposing.

Thirdly, there is the wording of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office document, which refers to the UK position as a “compromise”, suggesting that the UK is in fact trying to meet Canada halfway.  However, the document also makes clear that the Canadians themselves see no advantage in what the UK is proposing, and even object on the grounds that they would be penalised for keeping good records. I think one has to take some account of the fact that diplomacy involves using diplomatic language.

So, overall, I think the criticisms of the UK position, and Norman Baker, in relation to the FQD, lack substance.

However, that doesn’t mean I’m happy with the UK’s position on the tarsands.  There is the matter of Lord Sassoon’s visit to Calgary and  the upgrading of the consulate in Calgary to look after UK interests.  The UK government may not be able to stop British companies such as the HSBC investing in the tar-sands, but it doesn’t have to help them. I’d also like to see robust statements by the UK government, critical of Canada’s environmental policies.  When Cameron went to China, we were assured he was going to raise the issue of human rights with Wen Jiabao.  Where was the similar assurance about raising the issue of climate change with Harper?

Finally, I’m puzzled by the piece on Chris Davies‘ blog written by his campaign manager Richard Marbrow. Although it is written by Marbrow, Damian Carrington quotes Davies directly in the Guardian, so I think we can assume Marbrow is conveying Davies’ views. As the Lib-Dem spokesman on Environment and Public Health in the European Parliament, I would have expected Davies to have had a conversation with Norman Baker, before now, about the FQD.  Maybe they have, but if so, Marbrow seems to be ignorant of what was said. I’d like to know whether Davies is concerned about the “15 secret meetings”, or does he also object to heavy conventional crudes being categorised?

The last paragraph of the article where Marbrow wishes that the matter was being dealt with by the DECC rather than Transport seems to suggest that he’d prefer Chris Huhne to be dealing with it rather than Norman Baker.  I think it is a rather catty remark.

Amended 6.08 pm.  I’d not noticed that the article on Chris Davies site was actually written by his campaign manager Richard Marbrow.

Leave a Comment

The Fuel Quality Directive

December 3, 2011 at 1:07 am · Filed under Alberta, British politics, Canadian politics, Environment, Liberal Democrats ·Tagged , , , , , ,

I don’t imagine that there is anybody in the UK who reads my blog, who doesn’t read Lib-Dem Voice, but there are a few in Canada.  So, this is a link to Norman Baker’s article, which answers the criticisms made by Damian Carrington in The Guardian.

Leave a Comment

A message from an owner of the tarsands

December 1, 2011 at 2:41 am · Filed under Alberta, British politics, Canadian politics, Environment, Liberal Democrats ·Tagged , , , , , , ,

I am very disappointed by the support being given by the UK government to Canada, in its bid to alter the European Fuels Directive in Canada’s favour, and I am bemused by the content of Norman Baker’s letter to the Guardian.  I’ve campaigned for Mr Baker, and hold him in high esteem, but I’m baffled by the position he is taking on this issue.

As Damian Carrington points out quite correctly, Norman Baker’s reference to “the narrow approach” of the pressure groups, simply doesn’t make sense, since Canada isn’t mentioned in the wording of the directive.

At one level, the issue may seem to be a small one.  The market for Canada’s tarsands oil is primarily in the USA, with a potential secondary market in China.  (battles are going on at the moment over pipelines from Alberta to the USA, and across the Rockies to the coast of British Columbia). So, the amount of tarsands oil that is likely to find its way into the European market is quite small. However, there are bigger issues at stake.

The Canadian government’s stance on climate change is utterly disgraceful.   They have effectively reneged on Kyoto, and time and time again they have made it clear that they have no intention of doing anything substantial to tackle Canada’s emissions.  Prime Minister Harper was a climate change denier,when he came to power, and there is no reason to believe that his views have changed.  It can be guaranteed that at Durban, Canada will once again be directing its efforts to preventing any effective agreement on carrying Kyoto forward.

The newspapers in Canada have been explaining that, at Durban, Canada will be arguing that tarsands oil with its high emissions should be rebranded “ethical oil“, on the basis that unlike conventional crude from countries such as Saudi Arabia, it comes from a democratic country. This is typical of the government’s cynical approach, to treat the issue as one of PR, not substance.

The last thing Britain should be doing, is reinforcing the Canadian government’s belief that climate change is not to be taken seriously, that somehow Canada is exceptional and should be allowed to continue to ignore the problem in order to develop the tarsands industry.

If Canada is allowed to get away with this, it is, as Dr James Hanson has said “game over for the climate”. 

There is no doubt that winding down the tarsands  would cause Canada pain, because,  like Britain with the finance industry, Canada has been putting all its economic eggs in one basket. However, Canada has had other choices.  As recently as 2008, Canadians had the opportunity to vote for Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift, which would have directed economic development away from the tarsands and towards green industries.

I am also very disappointed that Britain has opened a new consulate in Alberta to support Britains economic interests, which effectively means BP and Shell’s tarsands investment.

And I’m saying all this as a resident of Alberta, and thus nominally a tarsands owner.  As a result of the industry, the average per capita emissions in Alberta are 72 tonnes CO2e, the highest in the world.

9.57 pm edited this post to replace link to Guardian article with one to BBC article, which explains the issue with greater clarity.

Leave a Comment

Executive Pay

October 28, 2011 at 9:11 pm · Filed under Economics, Liberal Democrats, Uncategorized

I’ve just listened to Any Questions, broadcast from the kleptocracy they call Great Britain, discussing the question of executive pay, in the light of the 50% rise enjoyed by the leaders of Britain’s failing companies this year.  Much hand-wringing from the panel, but of course “it is difficult to see what can be done” (I think it was Jeremy Browne who said that).  Same reaction as the government.  In fact, something could be done.  We impose minimum pay levels on employers by law, why not maximum pay levels?

What is the obstacle?  We’re always being told that we have to tread on eggshells not to upset the titans of industry, for fear of losing their talents, but what is wrong with demanding that they actually show some talent before they reap the rewards? We’re told that shareholders won’t question the pay awards, however unjustifiable, because that would cast doubt on their confidence in the company.  If that’s so, then it makes sense to make executive pay dependent on performance, by law.

I’m feeling the same anger that millions of other British people must be feeling today. What happened to the idea that the misery should be shared?

29th Oct, altered Question Time to Any Questions (which isn’t available in Canada).  Got my Dimblebys muddled up.

Comments (4)

Older Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.