Sunday
Sep162012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Deben slapped down
Sep 16, 2012 Climate: Parliament Christopher Booker reports:
Last week saw a truly momentous defeat for the green lobby groups which, in the past decade, have exercised almost complete control over Britain’s future energy policy. The fact that this took the form of a mighty slapdown for Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer), newly confirmed chairman of the Climate Change Committee, makes it all the more telling.
You have to wonder about politicians - appointing someone with a conflict of interest and then publicly humiliating them seems, well, odd. What is going on here?
Reader Comments (40)
Time for a change in the law then!
From my limited experience in the civil service, politics isn't chess with grand strategies worked out in advance, but firefighting - responding with increasing desperation to events (and to media coverage).
Sideline comment:
Ed Davey is a graduate of Jesus College, Oxford. The Principal of the College, Lord Krebs, is a member of the Climate Change Committee.
And even though Davey is (probably) the first Jesus person to get to teh Cabinet since Harold Wilson I cannot see him being invited back to High Table in the near future. :-0
Gavin Schmidt - the guy who runs 'Real Climate' as also an alumnus. And Sir John Houghton who started the whole 'climate change' schtick in the first place was a Fellow back in the 1970s.
For a small college the place seems to have had a disproportionate influence on this whole debate.
LB:
From my recollection of the Climate Change Act 2008, the Secretary of State can amend the targets if he sees fit and he doesn't have to accept the advice of the CCC.
Philip Bratby: It seems you are quite right - see the Climate Change Act 2008 from the opsi.gov website - extract below. apologies that the copying and pasting has destroyed the formatting.
Part 1 Carbon target and budgeting
The target for 20501.
The target for 20502.Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year
The target for 2050(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.
(2)“The 1990 baseline” means the aggregate amount of—
(a)net UK emissions of carbon dioxide for that year, and
(b)net UK emissions of each of the other targeted greenhouse gases for the year that is the base year for that gas.
Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year(1)The Secretary of State may by order—
(a)amend the percentage specified in section 1(1);
(b)amend section 1 to provide for a different year to be the baseline year.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may only be exercised—
(a)if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in—
(i)scientific knowledge about climate change, or
(ii)European or international law or policy,
that make it appropriate to do so, or
(b)in connection with the making of—
(i)an order under section 24 (designation of further greenhouse gases as targeted greenhouse gases), or
(ii)regulations under section 30 (emissions from international aviation or international shipping).
(3)The developments in scientific knowledge referred to in subsection (2) are—
(a)in relation to the first exercise of the power in subsection (1)(a), developments since the passing of this Act;
(b)in relation to a subsequent exercise of that power, developments since the evidential basis for the previous exercise was established.
(4)The power in subsection (1)(b) may only be exercised if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in European or international law or policy that make it appropriate to do so.
(5)An order under subsection (1)(b) may make consequential amendments of other references in this Act to the baseline year.
(6)An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
The Bish asks a very fair question - What is going on here ?
Who did the the 'appointing' and who is responsible for the 'publicly humiliating'?
We've a pretty good idea who are the 'bad' and the 'ugly' but who is the 'good' ?
And I don't mean just 'the Guvmint'.
What is going on here?
Nothing special that I can see. The Prime Minister appoints ministers and MPs, in theory at least (the Whips are let loose on this one), choose the Chair for Select Committees. See:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select/
which points out that Select Committees are parliamentary bodies charged with overseeing government departments.
In this case, as I understand it, Cameron nominated Gumboil for committee chair and the usual forelock tuggers duly clapped him on the back and nodded him into post. Gumless then writes a stupid letter to a new minister which even someone as dumb and as compromised as he is must know was posturing nonsense.
Said minister, known by chums for forthright views not shared by Gumbottle, tells him to eff off.
It's called politics.
DaveB
OK that's Lee van Cleef sorted, but who's Clint Eastwood ?
Not your namesake 'DaveM' surely.
If it IS Osborne why don't we give him the credit ?
Dung has started a useful Discussion Thread on Gummer which will hopefully still be winding its way when the thread to this post has petered out. I’m squatting there until someone tuns up to evict me, or join in.
One point I made there: My one faint hope is that his appointment is Cameron’s cunning plan (hatched at a secret meeting with future minister Delingpole?) to kill the Climate Change Committee with ridicule.
geoffchambers
Link please, I tried googling 'dung' but I got three Vietnamese websites.
Lord Deben AKA Gummer is a self publicist and deserves all he fails to get. I hope that his slap down is permanent.
And on that Dung Discussion Thread (found under the 'Discussion' navigation link on the sidebar), geoffchambers is on fine literary form with gems like-
'Non-sequiturs, self-contradictions and banalities sparkle like diamonds on the breast of a duchess.'
Philip/ Mike - the important passages in the act are these:
"Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year(1)The Secretary of State may by order—"
"(6)An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure."
The SoS is *not* free to make decisions - he may instigate a change, but needs the assent of both houses.
Ben
So instigation is required, lets see who is willing to put the countries economy at risk.... prior to a general election. Draw up the battle lines and lets force a stance between the parties that the electorate can actually recognise and vote upon.
Risky, possibly but a stance now is a sure fire winner if the regional winter temperatures noticeably decline or the MMS carry a series of investigations into mis-appropriation of public funds.Greedy Corporate Greens sucking the state dry, can't wait.
Slightly O/T but I remember BH's excellent summary of how governments get the desired result from an 'independent' inquiry they arrange.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/17/overheard.html
I wonder if there's any mileage in a thread bringing that post and the fallout from the Hillsborough Disaster report together? Not to capitalise on a disater, rather the failure of The Establishment.
Hillsborough joins a long list including Iraq, Dr David Kelly, Bloody Sunday et al. Due to the outrageous costs of accepting AGW theory the lies (not) rvealed by the Climategate inquiries deserve to be bracketed in a similar catergory.
Anyone listen to the Ian Dale 'debate' on LBC just now ?
Opened by a phone-in from Delingpole with responses by WWF (WTF?) and a LibDem.
Al the same lies about subsidies were repeated.
Is Booker is happy then so am I. What an achievement for a journalist in our generation. I thought I detected 'wiggle room' in what Davey said in response to questioning about Owen Paterson a few days ago. This is much better. Osborne has turned and probably Cameron too. What fun.
Deben and Yeo are troughers so were ripe for ridicule which is why they came to prominence recently.
Stupid men with too much vanity to resist the lure.
Could someone post the URL for the Dung discussion thread. I want see Geoff's pearls for myself! Thanks
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/1955279
As noted above it can be reached by clicking on the "Discussions" link on the sidebar -->
Dear Woodentop - Thanks for the pointer, and apologies for being so dense! Regards
It would be interesting to see where Labour stood if Cameron tried to repeal the Climate Change Act?
Gumboil had to give up two juicy plums in order to grab a juicier plum, which turned out to be a dried up old prune ?
it would take a heart of stone not to laugh
"Anyone listen to the Ian Dale 'debate' on LBC just now ?
Opened by a phone-in from Delingpole with responses by WWF (WTF?) and a LibDem.
Al the same lies about subsidies were repeated.
Sep 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM | toad"
Yes, TOAD, I listened to the programme - at least for 20 minutes. JD seemed to be at the top of the prog on a phone-in for all of 10 minutes - and wasn't allowed to rebut anything after that point. It was then left to a LibDem and a WWF activist to push for more 'renewables'.
I started to email the show about the WWF claim that fossil fuels are subsidised by £3.5B a year - but I gave up as I figured Ian dale had an agenda that wouldn't be shifted.
Perhaps Dale is someone who needs to be educated, 'cos what he had to say was dire...
It isn't odd at all. Who better to head the Climate Change Committee than someone the public can have no confidence in whatsoever, especially when you want to U-turn on the Climate Change Act?
He's the kind-of guy Sir Humphrey would have recommended!
Ben Pile @ 11.56 am
Agreed. But the point is that if a rational SOS wished to save our society from the industrial suicide that we have embarked on, it is within the power of our own legislature to change the rules. We are not subject to overriding EU legislation.
"appointing someone with a conflict of interest and then publicly humiliating them seems, well, odd."
No necessarily. It might just be a neat way of dealing with the annoying little drittsekk instead of getting into a stand-up row over his appointment. Might even be able to nobble Yeo with similar tactics...
And on that Dung Discussion Thread (found under the 'Discussion' navigation link on the sidebar), geoffchambers is on fine literary form with gems like-
'Non-sequiturs, self-contradictions and banalities sparkle like diamonds on the breast of a duchess.'
That would explain Monckton's success as a colonial rhinestone salesman.
The stench in the Establishment's green Aegian stables seems to be offending more and more politico nostrils. Anyone else noticed how political blogs like Samizdata are picking up nearly every story now, like this
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2012/09/owen_patterson.html
and this
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2012/09/so_what_is_this.html
Perhaps Paterson has been challenged to wield the Herculean shovel. After all, he seems to like a herculean challenge- (During the parliament’s summer recess, the North Shropshire MP and his wife Rose took part in the Mongol Derby – widely considered as the world’s most grueling horse race. The couple were among 11 of 23 starters to finish the gruelling 1,000km (621 miles) course, as they followed in the footsteps of Genghis Khan.)
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/04/09/2012/134916/Owen-Paterson-appointed-as-DEFRA-secretary.htm
I agree with CheshireRed the Hillsborough Disaster Report is just another reason not to trust politicians or The Establishment. Even notice in the press how Kate’s unremarkable boobs have pushed this important story about the 96 victims off the front page! I am more interested in Hillsborough thank you MSM.
We can just add climate and energy policy to the ever increasing list of corruption. The State appears to be rotten to its very core, and I am not sure our “leaders” are ruthless enough to make the much needed policy U-turn. They must feel so stupid, it must all seem so painful.
With such a rotten mess BH what’s the best strategy? How should we communicate our message to the wider public and the all too few sympathetic MPs?
Geoff definitely gets a First. Russell a dodgy Desmond.
Pharos
I feel sure he would not have finished the Mongol Derby if he had been packing a Herculean Shovel.
Fay Kelly-Tuncay
Nuclear Weapons.
Its the only way to be sure.
Dung
I defer, for you are the ultimate authority:-
The fifth Labour of Heracles (Hercules in Latin) was to clean the Augean stables ... the livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung. (Wiki)
Mike - " it is within the power of our own legislature to change the rules. We are not subject to overriding EU legislation."
We still would be. But the CCA aimed to commit us to substantially more.
Pharos
Below the belt sir, shame on you ^.^
So might they perhaps not bother with the political problems of repealing the CCA, if they simply change the targets once most politicians realise that existing targets cannot be met in a month of Sundays?
I wonder if some wily old civil servants made sure that was a possibility when the act was written. Probably very sensible, because I suspect the devil will ski to work before the whole political establishment confesses to having been duped.
"the devil will ski to work before the whole political establishment confesses to having been duped"
:-)
Or perhaps that should be :-( as you're probably right.
Michael - "So might they perhaps not bother with the political problems of repealing the CCA, if they simply change the targets once most politicians realise that existing targets cannot be met in a month of Sundays?"
The problem is getting most politicians to realise it. And this is about more than just making them understand that the policies are poorly conceived. And even then, if we managed to convince MPs and MEPs that the policies are silly, there's the growing possibility that global environmental politics will simply shift its emphasis from climate to such things as biodiversity/species, and resource depletion/overpopulation.
"I wonder if some wily old civil servants made sure that was a possibility when the act was written. Probably very sensible, because I suspect the devil will ski to work before the whole political establishment confesses to having been duped."
There's the clause in S1, which Mike points to, which approximates to that. But remember that they're self interested. A lot of this stuff is just boilerplate EU/other supranational agreements. Civil servants and politicians form committees to implement them, which invariably deepen the commitments to which we're already obliged. The CCA follows one such agreement. We were already committed to reductions in CO2 and increases in the proportion of renewable energy. But the only way our political institutions can effect the illusion that they have any choice about what to do is to add to the commitment. Politicians see their role much more as committing themselves to international agreements -- and leading their design and construction -- rather than representing the interests of the public.
Deben and Yeo
David Cameron also has 2 of these things in his Government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63YG-BOCns