Bishop Hill LSE boss resigns
Mar 4, 2011 Climate: Ward Education The head of the London School of Economics, Howard Davies, has resigned over the links between his institution and the Libyan regime. There appears to be some sympathy in the media, with the Guardian in particular pointing out that universities have been encouraged to get more and more funding from private sources.
Readers here are aware, of course, of the source of funding for the Grantham Institute, home of a certain Mr Ward. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noted the incongruousness of Ward's overtly political actions being issued from the heart of a centre of learning.
Of course Mr Grantham is free to do what he likes with his own money, including setting up study institutes in famous universities. To my mind the problem is more in the fact that the LSE took the money without any apparent concern for what the Grantham Institute would be getting up to. There is something of a parallel in the case of the Gadaffi money, which seems to have been accepted without considering the risk of damage to LSE's reputation. Pecunia non olet, perhaps, but in business reputation is all. In a rapidly commercialising higher education sector, university bosses would do well to remember it.
Reader Comments (37)
he's on radio now. i thought the interviewer asked why he accepted a donation from a nasty place like the UEA. he might have said UAE. not sure.
This is the same guy who was in charge of the UK Financial regulator the FSA when people lost money via Equitable Life. Those of us in finance know this individual as someone ignorant of reality but full of his own opinions.
It took a long time but finally the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman published the report on the debacle and its title was "Equitable Life - a decade of Regulatory Failure".
From my personal experience I would say this individual is a complete prat.
It does not surprise me that his lack of common sense has dropped him in the mire once again.
We shouldn't be too unpleasant to the man, at least he's done the right thing unlike many others in recent years who have blithely worded "I take fully responsibility" but have stayed in post (and thereby not taken responsibility at all).
Nor should we be in the least bit surprised that an institution with a strong core of socialist managers has taken money from a brutal dictator who proclaims himself to be a socialist. In the eyes of these people dirty money is clean if the payer says the magic words "I am a socialist".
Until fairly recently I was proud of my alma mater, the LSE. But I am thoroughly disgruntled with its recent fund-raising activities.
It’s not a real surprise from talking to people that have work on post graduate courses there its clear pressure can be felt to ‘ensure’ certain students pass the course or not to ask to many question on who actual did the work .
Meanwhile the LSE has been a favoured destination of the sons and daughters of some of the worlds ‘lest nice’ people for a long time, partly due to its London location.
That Bob is based there is one thing , but has he does not work for LSE we can’t claim that Mr Ward is the LSE fault.
Bob Ward is bound by the LSE's code on Freedom of Speech, which states;
LSE's Pro-director (Research and External Relations) and Chair of the LSE's Free Speech group, Professor Stuart Corbridge is responsible for public engagment and also to ensure that code of practice around freedom of speech is applied. Also a member of LSE's Free Speech group is Ms Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, who once said, "The way to let terrorists win is to shut down free speech".
In 2007, in response to the Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle, Bob Ward stated;
There have been many other instances since then where Bob Ward has challenged organisations and individuals right to behave impartially or voice dissent over climate change. Bob Ward has never qualified his comments by stating that everyone has a right to voice their opinions without interference or disadvantage.
Why is the LSE allowing one it's staff members to make attacks on the values they hold dear on freedom of speech and is enshrined in their own code?
The role of Bob Ward is not one of researcher. He did not complete his PhD. He became a PR spokesman and has now taken on this role at the Grantham Institute. He uses spin, misdirection and sometimes rather intimidatory methods to argue his side. Perhaps the actual research faculty at the LSE Grantham Institute are too scared of him or too scared of appearing in the media and he fills that gap. But he is not a communicator he is clearly a very partisan advocate. The role which Bob Ward plays at the Grantham Institute should not exist. It is also interesting to note that Imperial College also takes money from Jeremy Grantham as it has its own Grantham Institute. However there is no Bob Ward clone there, fortunately.
@KnR
"That Bob is based there is one thing , but has he does not work for LSE we can’t claim that Mr Ward is the LSE fault."
OK, let's see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/mar/03/bbc-climate-change-science
The fact that a Grantham shill like Bob Ward is based there and that he carries the LSE tag ([presumably with authorisation) is sufficient to negatively affect LSE's credibility and reputation. Grantham Research Institute must be paying huge sums of money to conduct their propaganda activities with LSE tag attached to it.
If nothing elese, this episode shows the absolute extreme to which potentially conflicting or influencing fiscal relationship need to descend before anyone acknowledges any problem.
Qaddafi giving money to LSE seemed no problem until his despotism descended into widespread overt murder. Why not before then?
The same question applies to Grantham, Soros, not to mention the more mainstream grant and funding regime within the academic field of climate "science"
Mac, thank you greatly for the insight about Ward, the LSE, Swindle and free speech. I'd not seen that laid out before and it's crystallized some disparate thoughts. Excellent.
While on the general subject of free speech, did anyone notice that John Kampfner of the Index on Censorship turned on Julian Assange of WikiLeaks in The Guardian this week? That's of interest partly because of Assange's very strange claims about his role in Climategate, when he also downplayed the significance of the leak, from a place of almost total ignorance, and partly (for me anyhow) because Kampfner chaired that memorable debate between George Monbiot and James Delingpole at Free Word (base for IoC, English PEN and libel reform) in early December 2009 on whether it's ever justifiable comparing climate sceptics with holocaust deniers. Inevitably the debate got sidetracked by Climategate but it was an important subject in its own right - not least because holocaust denial has been made illegal in some European states and some in the audience clearly wanted the same for 'climate criminals' like you and me.
Simon Singh is of course a hero to the libel reform people - and rightly so, in my view. But it's good to track the climate free speech tack, without overstating the case, as Mac has done with Ward. All credit to Johnny Ball for getting in so many facts in such a short time, for his principled concern for the next generation and for his unashamed passion on the subject. We need more of all three for free speech on climate to really mean something. (And credit to Andrew Neil too for making the BBC more true to its principles.)
@MAC
Perhaps Lord Woolf could be persuaded to ask for the scope of his inquiry to be extended to cover the activities of Bob Ward? LSE clearly being in panic mode they would be unlikely to object to any request from Woolf to extend his terms of reference.
Far better to get all the bad news out in one report.
Just read Guido's post on the LSE debacle. I think that Lord Woolf could be quite busy!
Clearing Out the Rot
http://order-order.com/2011/03/04/clearing-out-the-rot/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29
Director Sir Howard Davies has resigned "to protect the reputation of the LSE" - as far as I am aware, LSE's reputation was always one of left-wing subversion. Do we really want that to be protected?
LSE cannot claim they are ignorant of Bob Ward's rant in the Guardian. It is being featured on their website.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/home.aspx
It would appear that the LSE supports illiberal-liberalism.
No wonder Saif Gaddafi was welcomed with open arms by the LSE.
Yes, the LSE was founded by the Webbs and has a reputation for lefty academia. However, when I was an undergraduate there in the early sixties it boasted a stellar faculty with a wide spectrum of political beliefs: for instance both Karl Popper and Michael Oakeshott were professors there at the time. Also, of the student political societies at LSE at the time, I seem to recall - although I stand to be corrected - that the Conservative Society was the one with most members. I should add that the father of the present Leader of the Opposition was also on the faculty. However, such was his marxist lunacy he was, with the exception of a small coterie of stafff and students, a complete laughing stock. How times change! There's now an annual Ralph Miliband Memorial Lecture given at LSE.
But as David Starkey said on QT last night, this kerfuffle over Gaddafi is but a symptom of the wholesale corruption and debasement of academia in the UK. The posters and commenters - or most of them - on this blog concentrate on the corruption of science in the discipline of "climate science". But that corruption is only one aspect of the corruption noted by Starkey.
"There's now an annual Ralph Miliband Memorial Lecture given at LSE."
... and in the 2009/10 series of said lectures we find
25 May: Saif al-Islam Alqadhafi · Libya: Past, Present, and Future
From my wide-eyed colonial outsider's perspective, the lack of ethics and ethical behaviour in the UK's corridors of power, governmental and business, are staggering; the links with the current Libyan regime regime at the LSE are but the tip of a very large iceberg. The thing I find most worrying is that most of the people involved in such matters neither admit nor see anything dodgy until the poo hits the windmill..
I didn't know what olet meant and had to look it up. I was amused to note that it originated from a Roman tax on urine. Very apposite to Bob Ward, then, who is being paid to take the p1ss.
Re Umbongo's point, the corruption of academia in the case of Climategate seems largely to have been corruption in pursuit of taxpayers' money, whether in the form of research grants or simple sinecures on unaccountable quangoes. I do wonder, though, whether the corruption of acedeme was a necessary but not sufficient cause of the CAGW racket. Could it really have got off the ground without the backing of governments and business as well?
Even the systemic crime embedded in carbon trading is quite useful to any government with an agenda to extend its own powers.
I seem to remember that ACL Blair had links with Gadaffi too. Or was I mistaken?
Perhaps Cherie just got a free shopping trip round Tripoli......
If this guy is correct in resigning then what about Blair and Brown, they were toadying even worse.
The clucking of chickens coming home to roost - if only we had a more vigorous and independent mass media to capture the sights and sounds!
The LSE as a whole comes 9th, and 'delusional college professors' come 10th on this list of the 'World's Top Ten Gaddafi Toads': http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/03/03/the-mead-list-worlds-top-ten-gaddafi-toads/
Number 1 is the UN Human Rights Commission.
Number 2 is Gordon Brown and his government.
All in all, a list soaked in insight, with this telling summary of the academic situation:
"Lots of universities take money from lots of unsavory donors; as a university professor, I sympathize. The emperor Vespasian levied a tax on the urine collected from Rome’s main sewer (and used as a source of chemicals for bleaching and other processes). His son complained about the disgusting and stinky revenue source: his father held up a gold coin and said “Pecunia non olet,” the money doesn’t stink. There are plenty of Non Olet chairs for professors of this and that around the world today, and there are worse uses for money than to keep academics out of the cold.
But there are limits, and the London School of Economics went well beyond these when it accepted a gift of $2.4 million from distinguished alum (and mad-dog son of Gaddafi) Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi to establish a program on “civil society issues” in North Africa. Next up at LSE: the Herman Goering Chair in Judaic Studies."
In my view, Gaddafi was capable of less harm to humanity than the IPCC was and is, but in each case their antics found favour in high places. Gaddafi is no longer seen as 'acceptable'. How much longer before the IPCC enjoys the same fate?
LSE are hosting a public event featuring Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, on 10th March 2011.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2011/20110310t1830vOT.aspx
I am intrigued by "benefits of climate change".
Will Bob Ward be on hand to challenge any inaccurate and misleading statements uttered by Ms Robinson on the benefits of climate change?
Sir Howard Davies: 'We have been absolutely scrupulous to ensure that there was no control over the research agenda by the people making the donations' http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/04/howard-davies-denies-lse-undermined
Can the same be said for the Grantham Institute of Climate Change at LSE?
Didn't Jim Hacker graduate from the LSE? Seem to remember Humphrey being sniffy about it...
So the LSE is going to lose its Libyan blood money. Will there need to be redundancies?
My favourite part of all this is Shami Chakrabarti the whinging human rights activist who smugly chastises governments and other commercial organisations for dealing with other world governments she deems unfit. Of course she has "bucketful's of regret" but not enough to resign apparently. Of course the BBC will continue to invite her and her Libertarian organisation on to every TV show possible to berate us all and I'm sure she will have the gaul to this with a straight face. Total hipocricy.
Mac
Here is all you need to know about Bob Ward's approach to the freedom of speech.
http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/exeres/F3AA3031-F103-48F6-A031-13A4F5BE9D22.htm
I note Ward was working for Risk Management Solutions back then. It was RMS who contributed to Myles Allen 2011 study that attributed the UK floods of 2000 to AGW. A study that has been continuely lambasted for ignoring the actual autumnal heavy-rain precipitation data that showed no trend, with 1931 heavy rainfail event being of greater magnitude than 2000.
It is small world in UK climate circles, a small ignorant world.
according to ward people do not have a right to be wrong. If hey are 'wrong' as defined by a self-appointed group then they can be told their views are inaccurate.
Ward's views are abhorrent to democracy and not far away from the jackboot and the knock on the door at midnight.
Like Doug (above) I read the career synopsis of Howard Davies with a mixture of incredulity and growing anger. How many cock-ups do you need to have been involved in before the establishment realises you are useless? Or does it work in entirely the opposite way?
I also noted Alexander k's contribution and have to agree. We British have a fondness for looking down our noses at 'corrupt foreigners'. Once, that might have been justified. It certainly isn't now.
We need a Herculean clean-out of the stables - and who knows what interesting matter might be found regarding those who stand to benefit by promoting the AGW faith?
UncleBadger
"How many cock-ups do you need to have been involved in before the establishment realises you are useless? Or does it work in entirely the opposite way?"
Davies is a senior member of the political class. He'll be found something appropriate to his talents at a handsome salary either (probably) at the taxpayers' expense or in a comfortable sinecure (or sinecures) on the board(s) of a large corporation where he can big himself up at the shareholders' expense. Whatever, he will not suffer financially nor, in the long run, reputationally. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up as a consultant to some university on fund-raising.
For more info on LSE Grantham Institute, (don't forget the other one at Imperial, with Brian Hoskins),
check out http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers.
Apart from Doug (8:32 am) no-one else seems to have remarked that Davies is the former Chairman of the Financial Services Agency
"This is the same guy who was in charge of the UK Financial regulator the FSA when people lost money via Equitable Life. Those of us in finance know this individual as someone ignorant of reality but full of his own opinions."
What is it about the FSA? The watchdog that totally failed to bark?
Of course, we now have Lord "Dan Dare" Turner as Chair of the useless FSA.
AND the "Climate Change Committee".
Another incompetent and grossly overpaid fantasist.
Further to some of the comments regarding Sir Howard Davies (who on earth gave him a knighthood?), I recall that at the time of the Exchange Rate Mechanism debacle when John Major raised interest rates to 15%, Davies was interviewed on the news publicly supporting that move. Even John Major managed to realize the crippling effects that the said interest rates would have on the economy and quickly rescinded the increase, as well as ditching the ERM. What it demonstrates is that it doesn't matter how incompetent or useless or indeed just downright wrong-headed a person is, if they're part of the bureaucratic elite. However stupid or wrong they might be, that's absolutely no bar on their further progress up the rungs of the 'greasy pole'. Davies is just an excellent example of that. I daresay in a few months' time we might be reading of him again in some new well-paid sinecure, his career (though not his reputation) completely unsullied by taking the blood-money of a dictator.
Hey Bob, next time you start spouting about "deniers" being tied to "Big Oil" remind yourself of this headline in the D.M. today.
The day that LSE sold its soul to Libya: BP chief makes oil deal with Gaddafi... and drags prestigious university into disrepute
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363222/The-day-LSE-sold-soul-Libya-BP-chief-makes-oil-deal-Gaddafi--drags-prestigious-university-disrepute.html#ixzz1Fhzqwfiy
@ MAc
foreign exchange is pretty much the most traded currency on the planet, the currency market should not be the busiest in the world, the foreign exchange market. When you spend a little time, as the foreign exchange market, you will discover that the busiest foreign banks to buy and sell in central London and New York comes after. So those are the two markets, one must be specialized in if you are finished look for a better time to trade foreign money.
nadex review