All posts by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter)

Steve Macintyre’s Peek Behind the curtain

Back in March Climateaudit published this blog. This deals with the suppression of a paper that says there is no evidence for a rise in the level of water vapour in the upper atmosphere in the recent past. Why is this important? The forecasts of dramatic rise in global temperatures are based upon the small rise in global temperatures so far experienced (and claimed to be caused by increases in greenhouse gases) resulting in higher levels of water vapour in the middle and upper troposphere. Without this positive feedback loop, the current 2oC to 4oC rise in temperatures predicted for this century are dramatically reduced.

The bottom line is that, if (repeat if) one could believe the NCEP data ‘as is’, water vapour feedback over the last 35 years has been negative. And if the pattern were to continue into the future, one would expect water vapour feedback in the climate system to halve rather than double the temperature rise due to increasing CO2.

In other words, if the data is right, expect global temperatures to rise by 0.5 oC.

The response should be one of ‘let us pursue this further’, not ‘let us squash this, as it rocks the boat’.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 25/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Environment
Tagged , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 25/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/25/steve-macintyre%e2%80%99s-peek-behind-the-curtain/

MPs Expenses – Classic British Fudge

There is a very valid allegation that Nadine Dorries makes, that will get drowned out in the backlash from her wilder comments. The expenses system was designed to give MPs an underhand pay rise, when a real one would have caused public anger. Nadine Dorries claims that until 2005, MPs were actively encouraged to view expenses as part of their normal salary, and the fees office actively helped. According to Iain Dale, that same fees office have privately apologized to Labour MP Ben Chapman for advice given to him on his mortgage arrangements. Dale also made a post that Ken Livingstone has alleged that the Labour Whips actively encouraged MPs to see second home allowances a supplement to their salary. They therefore encouraged MPs to claim the maximum.

 

If Dorries’s allegation is true. then the current expenses system was put in to deceive the electorate about with the true level of MPs pay. In so doing it encourages a culture of dishonesty and self-serving that should be alien to the political class. It also shows that rather than a few MPs troughing off their own, both the fees office and the political parties actively encouraged their MPs to participate. This could be most damaging for the Labour party who have done least to make a clean break with past practices.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in MPs Expenses

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/23/mps-expenses-%e2%80%93-classic-british-fudge/

The end of Nadine Dorries’s Career?

 

The Honourable Member for Mid-Beds has had her blog taken due to manic accusations about the Barclay Brothers, owners of the Telegraph. Full story from Dizzy, with additional comments by Iain Dale.

It is a shame that she should end the piece concerned with wild conspiracy theories. They do not stand up to close scrutiny. Nadine is also made wild suggestions on BBC Radio 5 Live that there is the risk of MPs committing suicide.  It looks like these extreme comments will drown out a very valid point – see next posting.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in MPs Expenses, Politicians

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/23/the-end-of-nadine-dorries%e2%80%99s-career/

UK Green Party Manifesto – Grade E for Numeracy

The UK Green Party yesterday published it’s Manifesto for the forthcoming European Elections. There were some statistics that show a lack of numeracy.

 

UK Labour Party’s target emissions reduction

 

The Labour government now proposes a target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, which works out at about 2.5% per annum. (Page 4 Col 2)

 

          Let us keep the maths simple. Let us take the base year as 2010 and set that at 100. This gives 40 years to achieve the target, which is 20. There are 2 ways of calculating this. – Beancounters will recognize the terminology.

  1. Straight Line Method. Take the same reduction every year. The reduction is 2.5 each year. So if 2010 is 100, 2011 is 97.5, 2012 is 95 etc. After 40 years emissions will be 100-(2.5*40) = 0
  2. Reducing Balance Method. Each year reduce the balance by 2.5% from the previous year. So if 2010 is 100, 2011 is 97.5, 2012 is 95.06, 2013 is 92.69 etc. After 40 years emissions will be 100*0.97540 = 36.32.

 

By the straight line method, emissions will be reduced by 100% and by the straight line method they will be reduced by 63.68%. The correct answer, by the straight line method is 2% per year, by the reducing balance method 3.95%. Neither approximates to 2.5%

 

Green Party’s target emission reduction

 

Based on the latest scientific predictions, an industrialised country such as the UK needs to reduce emissions by 90% by 2030. And we need a commitment to annual targets now, rather than aspirations for the distant future. The Green Party has calculated that the UK needs to be making reductions of around 10% per annum from now on. (Page 4 Col 2 to Page 5 Col 1)

 

            Let us see if the Green Party’s calculations are correct. Taking 2010 as a base, 2030 is in 20 years time. Using the straight line method, a 10% reduction per annum reduction will give 100-(10*40) = -100. That is we will be taking as much greenhouses gases out of the atmosphere as we are pumping in today. Children of today can look

forward to a chilly retirement. Vote Green for a White future!

            Using the reducing balance method, a 10% reduction per annum will be 100*0.9020 = 12.16. Strictly, to get a 90% fall would require a 10.86% reduction per annum, but 10% reduction would only miss the target by 2 years, so is a good enough approximation.

 

Conclusion

Of the two statements, there are 4 possible answers. Only one of these answers can be correct, so a 25% mark is possible, or an E grade. However, as the method of calculation is not stated, a much less generous marker, would give them an F.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 15/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Environment

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 15/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/15/uk-green-party-manifesto-%e2%80%93-grade-e-for-numeracy/

MP’s Expenses – Being Machiavellian to tackle the bigger financial issues

Yesterday I wrote a comment on John Redwood’s blog that

  1. That MPs costs are an insignificant part of public expenditure.
  2. David Cameron should take a decisive (Machiavellian) approach to this, providing a clear precedent for the government to follow.
  3. We should then move on to sorting out the economy.

 

This drew two responses. I repeat them hear, with more fulsome responses than I posted earlier on the blog.

Lynne Gill Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 6:44 am

If you think the furore over MPs’ expenses is a mere distraction you have no idea of the outrage felt by the rest of the population. Removing the party whip and asking for admissions and apologies from these miscreants is only the beginning of the process.

Their behaviour is morally repellent and conniving, and in many cases criminal – but I guess it’s going to be deemed ‘not in the public interest to prosecute’, eh?

The very least they should be expected to do is pay back what they have stolen from the tax-payers pockets. How about putting their ill-gotten gains into a fund for, oh, lets say refurbishing the almost-slums some of our service personnel are living in, between putting their lives in danger at the behest of these gross pieces of work.

 

 I profoundly disagree with your comment. I believe that in politics, as in other areas, you should give people a chance to make amends and move on. This is what David Cameron has done today, setting a precedent for the government to follow.

If we start an inquisition it will go on for months. At this time when we need better government to sort out the economic mess we are in, not to turn parliament into a Roman Circus to watch good people being thrown to the lions.

Further, most MPs have acted within the existing rules. They have not “stolen” money, but that have acted dishonourably and immorally. For them, the conformance has been to the letter of the detailed rules, rather than to the spirit of why they were laid down.

 

Donna W Reply:
May 12th, 2009 at 8:33 am

Sorry, but it is going to need much more than punishment of the 3 worst offenders.

This is Cameron’s chance to clear the Party of the Old Guard – the Squire-ocracy who have no understanding of ‘normal’ peoples’ lives.

If he let’s them get away with claiming expenses for swimming pools, moats, chandeliers, horse-manure (how apt); domestic servants etc ….. then the Tory Party will sink like a stone.

He should be demanding they all pay back the money they have mis-appropriated, seek resignations – and if they’re not forthcoming, withdraw the Whip.

 

Your comment about Cameron demanding that money should be paid back is valid, and is exactly what Cameron has done today. However, Cameron has broadly followed my line. Draw a line in the sand to those who recognise their error and apologise, then move on. Indeed he has improved on my suggestion, as he has set a clear set of rules for those wishing to retain the Conservative Whip. To do as you suggest – essentially sack those the toffs, or those you disagree with – is poor leadership.

Political parties are essentially coalitions, and the leaders need to keep a large range of people on board, who are loyal to that leadership. Machiavelli wrote in 16th century Italy that when a Prince takes over a city he should kill a few and then clearly state that peace should ensue. This way, the new subjects have a clear decision – die or become loyal. For Machiavelli, going after all the vanquished enemies would be counter-productive. It is better to transform the majority and make them loyal subjects, for given that chance most will become loyal subjects. If you are continuously crushing the vanquished, then they will have reason to rise up against the Prince.

 Being “Machiavellian” in the modern political context, is about delivering a clear message in times of crisis, sacking those who do not conform, but then offering a clear way forward to those who wish to mend there ways.  

          As John Redwood has stated, the Conservatives in power will have much bigger battles to wage. Today Cameron has shown he can fight those battles more effectively than the current Prime Minister.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 12/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Credit Crunch, MPs Expenses

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 12/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/12/mp%e2%80%99s-expenses-%e2%80%93-being-machiavellian-to-tackle-the-bigger-financial-issues/

Dave Cameron is decisive on MPs expenses

Yesterday I wrote

 

 David Cameron should remove the party Whip from the 3 worst offenders (according defined criteria, including failure to recognize their waywardness), forgive the rest (after appropriate admissions and apologies) and move on. That would set a clear precedent for the Prime Minister to follow.  

Further, it would also show David Cameron to be able to make decisive and bold moves for the sake of the country, even if it means losing some friends on the way. With unprecedented cuts to be required in public expenditure when he enters office, this would increase his stature for much bigger battles ahead.

 Today, David Cameron has made the decisive and bold move, in a way that improves upon my suggestion of yesterday, first in John Redwood’s blog, then enlarged upon on this blog. Iain Dale has a fulsome account of the speech here. What was missing from by post was that MPs should pay back expenses they claimed immorally (but not outside the rules). Also Cameron is more benevolent (he will only sack those who do not conform, not sack 3 as a warning to others). In addition Cameron lays down that principles are more important than rules, with a filtering of expenses before they are submitted. In all 3 areas Cameron has improved on my suggestions.

 The result is that the general principles will become more important than the individual rules. This is manic beancounting at its best!

 Furthermore, the way is clear to move on forward onto the wider issues, building on the experience to move forward. To quote David Cameron

” But when it comes down to it I think all of us want the same thing – we want to be proud of our Parliament and the people in it. We’ve got big, big problems in this country. We need big change.

If we win the next election, we’ll be asking the whole country to come together to show social responsibility, personal responsibility and thrift. So the least we can do is to ask Parliament to live by those values as well.”

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 12/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in MPs Expenses, Politicians, Uncategorized

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 12/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/12/dave-cameron-is-decisive-on-mps-expenses/

MPs Expenses – Cameron should be Machiavellian

Just posted the following comment to John Redwood’s Blog

MPs Expenses are (highly symbolic) distraction. If each MP’s cost us £300k each, 650 MPs cost £195m, or 0.03% of total government expenditure. A 50% saving on MP’s costs will be less than 0.1% of the total we need to save. Conservatives should be Machiavellian on this. David Cameron should remove the party Whip from the 3 worst offenders (according defined criteria, including failure to recognize their waywardness), forgive the rest (after appropriate admissions and apologies) and move on. That would set a clear precedent for the Prime Minister to follow.  

Further, it would also show David Cameron to be able to make decisive and bold moves for the sake of the country, even if it means losing some friends on the way. With unprecedented cuts to be required in public expenditure when he enters office, this would increase his stature for much bigger battles ahead.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Credit Crunch, Gordon Brown, MPs Expenses

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/11/mps-expenses-cameron-should-be-machiavellian/

Kelvin Hopkins – The Honourable Member for Luton North

As a break from all the revelations of MPs playing the system, please read this in today’s Telegraph.

 

A loose regime can only work for people with integrity. But a complex system will not only penalize the honest, but distract MPs from their proper role.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in MPs Expenses, Politicians

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/11/kelvin-hopkins-%e2%80%93-the-honourable-member-for-luton-north/

The Apologies on MPs Expenses

The Contrast between Cameron and Brown

 

–         Cameron seeks to bring his MPs into line, whilst Brown apologizes on behalf of all MPs

–         Cameron threatens action on those who have clearly broken the rules, whilst Brown is more for paying back the money owed.

 

That means, under Cameron, action is threatened, whilst under Brown the issue will be swept under the carpet. Could this be, if there is a consistent line between the parties, that the cabinet will suffer more than the shadow cabinet.

 

Might I suggest that Dave Cameron draws an unambiguous line and sidelines the worst offenders. This would leave the Labour party either with a many more sackings, or looking weak on unethical behaviour. The danger is the the Lib-dems would benefit at the expense of both. However, electorally, this may not matter too much, as the Lib-dems tend to lose seats in a swing to the Conservatives.

 

Please see below for the quotes on which this is based.

 

From David Cameron for the Conservatives then said (according to the Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan)

 

For MPs “stand up and explain why they claimed what they claimed”.    

“If there’s a case of someone who clearly did break the rules and that was totally unjustifiable then there may be a case for action.”

 

Further (quoted by the Guardian)

 

  1. “It is the responsibility of those we elect to behave properly. Not just legally, not just within the rules, but to the highest ethical standards. People who stand for public office put themselves forward as people who will rule over the rest of us.”    

 

From Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats also apologized for his MPs.

 

 

From Gordon Brown (according to the BBC)

 

          “I want to apologise on behalf of politicians, on behalf of all parties, for what has happened in the events of the last few days.”

 

   Further (in a speech to the Royal College of Nursing conference in Harrogate)

 

“Just as you have the highest standards in your profession, we must show that we have the highest standards for our profession.

“And we must show that, where mistakes have been made and errors have been discovered, where wrongs have to be righted, that that is done so immediately.

“We have also to try hard to show people and think hard about how a profession that, like yours, depends on trust – the most precious asset it has is trust – how that profession too can show that it is genuinely there to serve the public in all its future needs.”

 

The Contrast between Cameron and Brown

 

–         Cameron seeks to bring his MPs into line, whilst Brown apologizes on behalf of all MPs

–         Cameron threatens action on those who have clearly broken the rules, whilst Brown is more for paying back the money owed.

 

That means, under Cameron, action is threatened, whilst under Brown the issue will be swept under the carpet. Could this be, if there is a consistent line between the parties, that the cabinet will suffer more than the shadow cabinet.

 

Might I suggest that Dave Cameron draws an unambiguous line and sidelines the worst offenders? This would leave the Labour party either with many more sackings, or looking weak on unethical behaviour. Either way, it would strengthen Cameron’s hand as the more decisive party leader. The danger is the the Lib-dems would benefit at the expense of both. However, electorally, this may not matter too much, as the Lib-dems tend to lose seats in a swing to the Conservatives.

 

Please see below for the quotes on which this is based.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Politicians

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/11/the-apologies-on-mps-expenses/

The three greatest obstacles to Britain’s recovery?

 

Posted to Daniel Finklestein’s blog, in answer to The three greatest obstacles to Britain’s recovery?

 

1. The ballooning deficit – Large tax rises and increases in interest rates will slow down any recovery. Real public expenditure cuts will only happen if we are forced to by the IMF.
2. The massive increase in regulation in the past decade means that the economy has not the flexibility to create new jobs quickly.
3. Most of the growth of the past decade came from financial services and the public sector. Neither of the sectors will create many jobs in the next few years. Neither are there emerging growth areas, as in the 1980s and 1990s (security, call centres, telecoms etc.)

Please note that the three are not mutually exclusive. The financial sector is going to be hobbled by increased regulation and government ownership. Whilst I am pessimistic about the ability of government’s to control expenditure, the public sector payroll will not be increasing much in the next decade.

 

It is possible to replace the third point by

 

3. The housing market. When housing activity increases, so does a large part of the retail sector such as DIY products, furniture and carpets. There is likely to be a prolonged slump, as the volume of house sales is constrained by current credit squeeze and the oncoming interest rate hikes. House prices are likely to continue to fall, as more buy-to-let investors either desire to, or are forced to sell up. Whilst house prices are falling, people will delay buying.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 10/05/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 10/05/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/05/10/the-three-greatest-obstacles-to-britains-recovery/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »