Tuesday
Jan212014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Montague's triumph
Jan 21, 2014 BBC Climate: Parliament Energy: gas Sarah Montague's performance on her Hard Talk interview with Ed Davey was something to behold. In the half of the interview devoted to shale gas she managed to channel pretty much every green scare story on the subject to date.
This was a triumph of political activism in the guise of journalism.
Reader Comments (29)
I can never take more than about 5 minutes of sanctimonious BBC journalists, but in that time Ed Davey managed to say some halfway sensible things. I call that progress.
I agree that Montague is grating to say the least, just your typical leftie, however, on the shale gas section of the interview Davey made a decent defence of the case to progress as fast as possible. He's at last getting his act together, and not before time.
Thereafter however on nuclear power and climate change, he reverted to the dim-witted Davey we're used to seeing. Spouting all manner of nonsense with no data to support it. What I would like to know is how Davey managed to guarantee a £95MW/h price for nuclear when Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos has just struck a deal with the French for £37M/Wh.
That should be investigated by the Auditor General.
I only watched the bit about shale gas, but although no fan of Davey I felt he came across as quite sensible compared to [snip - raise the tone please]
Any relation to Brendan Montague?
If so that really does speak volumes.
It's not called HARDtalk for nothing. She gave Davey a hard time, he responded and, in my opinion, responded well. A few months ago the occasion of a BBC interviewer giving the Energy Secretary, a grilling , would have been applauded to the rafters!
She did her job and he did his.
Has the BishopHill congregation been taking lessons from RC?
Half way through the BBC eco-shill flagged up payments to local communities - of £100k per drill & 1% of proceeds. She said this was a 'bribe' and alluded to it somehow being unethical. A minute later she interrupted and complained that locals thought 10% of proceeds would have been fairer!
She pulled a similar trick on the nuclear question re price guarantees. While she had a point on the price paid by Ineos v Ed Davey's nuclear deal there was no mention of similar payments for renewables, of course.
Davey was more impressive in this interview than for a long time. fair do's.
She was just another BBC alarmist muck-raking activist; simple as that.
The "1% is a bribe, 10% is an acceptable emolument" sounds very like the "We've established what you are, we're just haggling over the price" argument...
RoyFOMR, I agree - she was doing a reasonable job. If she didn't ask all the "green" questions, he couldn't have refuted them. As it is, he wasn't too bad - for example, he simply rejected the poluted drinking water question.
Before I rush to join the Davey fan club, let's wait to see if he DOES anything to promote shale gas.
Any politician is perfectly capable of making his mouth say anything.
It's a naive analysis to think that Sarah Montague was giving her own opinions here. Her opinions have nothing to do with it. By approaching the debate from a particular angle, she gave Davey the opportunity to quash all those green scare stories and present a case for shale. How many other times recently have BH been able to say that Davey has talked sensibly? If a journalist's job is to extract information from interviewees, then I think she should be congratulated.
I find it difficult to reconcile the pro-shale Davey in this interview with the 97%-Davey in his interview with 'brillo'.
There is one point I nearly missed that shows up Montague: At approx 4:02 in Davey had been explaining how NS gas had had a good run and that shale, both economically and functionally, was not that far removed from it and would be equally as good for the country good. Montague's response was classic: "I don't know the difference".
Maybe he got the list of questions in advance so that his advisors and PR team could coach him or maybe his team are just good at anticipating the questions.
Apologies that you had to cut my comment. It was rude, I agree.
I do feel it was not Ms Montague playing devil's advocate - rather her own prejudices. But I do respect the tone of this blog.
According to today's online edition of the Grauniad, Mr Gummer as was , has discovered
the true nature of the opposition to shale. How someone with his vast political experience did not realise that he was lined up with a bunch of Trotskyists is beyond me. But this is a very significant Damascean change.
Roy FOMR
It's not called HARDtalk for nothing. She gave Davey a hard time, he responded and, in my opinion, responded well. A few months ago the occasion of a BBC interviewer giving the Energy Secretary, a grilling , would have been applauded to the rafters!
She did her job and he did his.
I have to agree, this was a very competant performance from both participants.
Punch and counterpunch with room for observers to make up their own minds.
Good debate, more please.
It is worth comparing Davey's answers with those he might have given, regarding shale and nuclear, a couple of years ago . What has changed, other than Government policy? On his own emphasis, he is a member of the government! More interesting this the flow of the interview, without hesitation, repetition (well not much) and deviation from the subject - for a whole 24 minutes, something well beyond even Kenneth Williams and Clement Freud together. This was very well scripted and I can only conclude that, either both are absolute masters of the issues discussed, or the same team briefed both sides.
Pesadia
It was normal BBC attack-from-the-left stuff. 50% of the time they should attack from the right.
Not sure I think that argument is relevant in this case. The interview was with a member of the Government.
The government is a conservative led coalition - and the Lib Dems have no strong principles to balance the Tories.
So an attack from the left is appropriate.
An extreme case: Consider an interview with Stalin - should half of the attacks be that he wasn't far enough to the left?
M Courtney
I take your point, but given that Lib, Lab and Con are all on the green bandwagon, an attack along the lines of "why the hell haven't you got the necessary regulatory framework in place yet?" is warranted. Not strictly an attack from the right, but I hope you see what I mean. When has this question ever been put to a minister. The BBC always, always asks ministers about the latest green scare story, hot off the press release printer.
Some might consider Sarah Montague's hard talking with Ed Davey fair. They might have had a point except that within the first twenty seconds of the report she states "Most European countries have banned fracking". Such disregard for actual truth shows Sarah to be a proponent of the global warming anti industrialisation campaign and not a reporter asking awkward questions.
So its a bribe to allow councils to keep business rates from fracking sites, but an investment when the same rules allow councils to keep business rates from renewable energy sites. If they want 10% from fracking sites, then it should be 10% from wind turbine sites too. Lets see how profitable they become then.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-rates-retention-scheme-renewable-energy-projects-statement
BH
It was normal BBC attack-from-the-left stuff. 50% of the time they should attack from the right.
I cannot disagree with that but I watched the programme unencumbered by political bias.
My considered opinion is that Ed Davey gave a confident performance (did I just say that) and
met every provocative question/statement with a calm firm credible answer concerning fracking.
I see this as the start of a real push/rush for shale. As a politicion, he was obliged to throw in
renewables although I did cringe when he mentioned CCAS but I think that goes over most
peoples head. It might have been interesting, had he been challenged on that.
I think there should be £100,000, per windmill for all local communities too. As the Sadbutmadlad suggests a percentage of the revenue can also be paid across.
Claude Aleggre is socialist who opposes carbon dioxide as the main cause of global warming. When we talk of the left it is a middle class London based left: very few working class northern and with a background in industry are worried by global warming.
mike fowle [bish]:
It's late and I'm catching up with BH quickly. I have to say that, having no intention of listening to either Ed or Sarah, I found that was all I needed. Thanks both men!
Charlie:
Vital point. I'll never forget my uncle Tom - uncle by marriage that is - a proud Yorkshireman of mining stock, taking me aside, aged 18, a wet-behind-the-ears toff, as he no doubt felt, on a visit to his home in Auckland, New Zealand, and telling me a few home truths about the traditional working class in the old country you would never hear from a Guardianista in a month on Sundays. That conversation and a book he passed on to me around that time have had a considerable influence on the rest of my life. But I perhaps digress. I doubt very much Tom ever bought into CAGW and I appreciate what you've written here, very much.
Richard Drake
I am intrigued!
What was the title of the book?
BBC bentness has been given an airing on the Mail on Sunday regarding 28-gate, courtesy of a FOI request from harmless skies.
More on WUWT.
pesadia: Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a tease but I don't want to divulge that right now. I'll tell the story in more detail at some point. It's just I've been struck recently how important this man was to the development of my thinking and attitudes. I was pondering out loud I guess. My mother and her younger sister Liz grew up in really grinding poverty, they both came to England and married Englishmen - but totally different men from very different backgrounds. That became my opportunity back at original base in Auckland in 1976. Strange how these things work.