91Èȱ¬

To me it seems this old chessnut debate of personalities vs policy is only take out of it's box when party leadership contenders have either too little or too much personality .... so not really anything to do with policies then!!

Afraid I tend to agree with Tony Benn. I think that everybody is fed up with the personality side of things - all this fuss about when Blair is leaving, is Ming useless etc.

There are plenty of issues that need debating, such as the NHS and Green matters for starters.

The public certainly have not told the Lib Dems they are interested in the environment. If this was the case they would have won far more seats at the last election. This is just another example of far left political parties and media telling the public how to think.

We are already taxed in direct correlation to the amount we use our cars. The cost of a gallon of petrol or diesel consists almost entirely of tax and excise duty (same thing). The more we use our cars, the more tax we pay. The bigger the engine (less mpg), the more tax we pay. Why do politicians need to make things more complicated? All this talk of satellite tracking of cars etc is madness when a simple and effective way of taxing car usage already exists.

Hi Nick,
You seem (in your otherwise excellent blog) to be suffering from the same comforting delusion as your other media colleagues, that is that you can report on what the media talk about as if 'the media' existed outside of people like yourself. You can’t both tell us in detail your thoughts on the Blair-Brown relationship, and then report on the media’s obsession with personalities as if your colleagues were bringing down the tone. It reminds me of the camera shot you see quite often on the news, of shots of assembled cameramen, taken by cameramen…

Personality or Novelty?

Quoted:
"Cash incentives are being offered to local Liberal Democrat parties who recruit women and people from ethnic minorities to stand for election."

I used to have an element of respect for the lib dems but it now seems like they are falling into the trap of encouraging minorites to win more votes?

Surely we should not be thinking that to be a woman or someone from an ethnic minority should give you an incentive?

That is actually very offensive and bad politics.

Political (or any other) journalists exist to report and possibly comment on the news. It is difficult to take them or their comments seriously though when they find the need to take the mickey out of a particular persons pronounciation. Its not clever
just silly.

glad to see you brought up the devil milburn, looking forward to your radio four program

Oh no - I was just getting the hang of tuning in every day to my favourite soap opera 'Westminster', by Nick Robinson and Nick Assinder, to find out what happened next to my favourite characters 'Wicked war monger Tony', 'Secret Gordon the back stabber' and the others in this every day tale of deceit and spin.

Now you're trying to tell me that there are issues - that they are actually real politicians with a country to run and a duty of care to the less well off, the Palestinians and the Africans.

I wish you'd broken us in more gently to the idea of issues Nick, regular readers of this column are going to need time to become accustomed to the notion.

Gordon Brown's current "charm offensive" really grates with me. Last week, he chose his interview with Sky News to speak for the first time about the death of his baby daughter Jennifer four years ago. The cynicism of this move astonishes me - are we supposed to think it is coincidence that he spoke about it now, with a leadership contest looming, and Charles Clarke's accusations that Brown is not "collegiate" still ringing in our ears? The public discussion of his very private emotions at the death of his daughter seems a disgusting way to exploit her memory for his own political gain. I cannot think of any other occasion where a political figure has stooped so low.

I've been doing a lot of research into climate change for the last few months. It certainly is a very real problem, and isn't going to go away. I've also been looking into various ideas about reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions - I'm not impressed with what I see reported in the mass media.

Since the debate on what the Lib Dems want to do about "green taxes" is still going on, it's a bit too soon to comment on proposals. So I'll just do some general comments.

Increasing "green taxes" would reduce demand, but not by enough - overall greenhouse gas emissions have to come down by over 50% to actually stop global warming. It's not like there are easy low/zero energy alternatives available for everything. I think governments need to spend more time helping the development of those alternatives - raising taxes is easy, but slow at improving efficiency, speeding up development and take-up of alternatives is hard and complex, but vital.

There's also too much focus on transportation - fuels for transportation only account for about 14% of the greenhouse gas problem, and 19.2% of CO2. So even if you magically made every single car, bus, truck, train, airplane etc zero emission, it would only reduce the problem, not solve it.

Taxes should be fair - otherwise they will be resented. A ton of CO2 produced from a bus, train or hybrid car is just as bad as a ton produced from a 4x4. The more governments try to encourage people to use public transport the more critical it becomes for public transport vehicles to be very efficient - simply assuming they are efficient is very short-sighted. I don't think a tax on ownership is at all fair. The fairest tax on transport would be a fuel tax, since it taxes actual usage directly. (Though technically, you'd have to do it on the amount of CO2 per Kg, rather than volume since volume varies with temperature).

Lower taxes can also be a useful signal to show the right thing to do - eg, 0% VAT on electric cars would be a good idea since electric motors are by far the most efficent way to power vehicles. Plug-in hybrids with enough battery capacity to do an average commute would be 2nd best. Today's hybrids are at best 3rd rate. Main problem with plug-in cars is the owners really need a garage.

Cutting down lots of rainforest to plant crops which are turned into fuel for cars etc is not a good solution I think.

With regards to power generation, I see nuclear power stations as having several problems: nobody makes them without government subsidies, they make a good terrorist target, waste disposal is a real problem and can't be ignored or uncosted, it helps nuclear wannabes like Iran, and in general people just don't like them. Mining and refining uranium, building and decommisioning the complex power stations and long-term storage of waste also consumes a lot of energy.

We also have a great nuclear fusion power plant - it's called the sun. Using solar cells is a good solution in many ways since it works just as well on a small scale. The main problem is cost, yet despite that, demand for solar cells is so strong, prices are going up. There's a lot of R&D going into making solar cells much more cost efficient. Governments could certainly help there - eg prizes for breakthrough development, use on government buildings, helping general takeup.

Certainly seems a better use of money to help fund R&D on renewable energy, and also build-out of it, than on new nuclear power plants. The UK is also well suited to wind, wave and tidal power.

There's even great possibilities with the humble lightbulb. The best technology available today is LED lighting, though it's mostly used in limited situations currently. LED lighting is extremely power efficient and getting increasingly better (widing the gap to compact florecent), produces little heat (safe to touch), consumes little energy to manufacture, and bulbs can last 50,000 hours or more - I've seen halogen lamps which last 2,000 hours labeled as "long life". Being much longer lasting means lower replacement costs - and fewer accidents (I wonder how many people injure themselves or even die when replacing light bulbs?).

Will any political parties see the light on this?

New technologies which are obviously superior don't always win - or take a long time. Governments should certainly promote more energy efficient technology. They should also do it in imaginitve ways, and realise that sometimes arms maybe need to be twisted a bit - to resellers in the long-term, selling super-long life LED bulbs would probably be less profitable than normal lightbulbs. Even just simple but meaningful labeling could help. There's also leading by example for politicians and celebrities.

Anyway... I think all the parties here in the UK are getting more serious about global warming. However, big tax rises could be counter-productive unless they're seen to be fair, and not just a way to raise money, and additional tax revenues are used to promote more energy efficient solutions.

More taxes? Ode to joy the British solution to everything. Stick not carrot.

We represent less than one percent of the world's population. The rapidly industrializing nations of Asia already dwarf us, they do not care about CO2, just getting food on the table and the lights on.

Instead of this self-flagellation, and more efforts to make Britain more complex, more taxed, less free thereby creating more emigrants.

Let's try and be more imaginative than bashing the public with more regulation, restrictions and taxes.

How about this, in ten years time all new public transport has to be run on electricity, all new build houses and commercial property must be fitted with solar panels; and the biggee, in 15 years all new build cars sold in the UK should be electric or non-oil driven.

Commercial self-interest will supply the knowledge to make these ideas work. Let's not beat up the poor old British citizen anymore.

I'll start by stating an important truth - that I have a lot of respect for the people who perform such a difficult feat of responding with impressive quasi-coherence to the ephemeral waves of "news". But. I think you underestimate the sheer momentum, the agenda-setting tyranny, of such personality-steeped reportage. Perhaps it's an inevitable consequence of the nature of the media these days, and the sheer quantity of information available, but the contextless dwelling on personality has helped to destroy any depth of analysis and reduced it to mere headline speculation.

Mr Rijk gets the prize for probably the longest comment on this blog for sometime....but it was certainly interesting and worth the read. It supports my own thoughts that really world governments are only tinkering at the edges of the problem and are not tackling it head on - the obvious response is for government to invest BILLIONS in research into alternative fuels - if we could power everything via electricity derived from sun/wind/wave that would be problem solved.....

So why aren't they doing it? Simple...which are the most powerful companies in the world? The oil companies...the scope of their influence is frightening, (who backs Bush, why are we in Iraq etc etc?). We will only get green technology en masse when it is economically expedient for the oil companies to allow us to have it....and also once governments have devised alternative ways to raise tax revenues other than duty on fuel. I know I sound like a good old conspiracy theorist, but there's just too much money (short term) riding on maintaining the status quo.

We look to our politicians for the answers.....does anyone honestly believe that any of our political parties has the strength of character or are brave enough to take on the oil giants and their American political allies? Good luck Nick, spending the week listening to all that well meaning hot air at the Lib/Dem conference.....a jot of difference it will make not one bit, (and the same goes for the Labour and Tory conferences).

Hurricane Katrina did nothing to change Bush's mind on this issue....it makes me shudder to think what horrors the world will have to suffer to make those who have the power (whether political or corporate)do something about it...that's if it's not too late already!

Oh dear! The usual crop of the car-dependent whining about how they already pay taxes to drive their cars. I wonder why they feel so guilty ... I have yet to see any party leader, however much they may posture and preen themselves on their strong and bold leadership, actually prepared to bite the bullet on social and environmental pollution. There is no genuine policy debate because we do not have democracy. We have populism, with all politicians cravenly seeking the support of the rich and powerful - and damn the future of the country.

Chris Rijk has done his homework and its good to read a comprehensive well researched item. I agree that rewards and education are the way,that is lower taxes for getting it right and not punishment for getting one of the confusing local schemes wrong. I have also been doing some research lately into the way we get rid or waste and it is amazing what a minefield it is. There are some very good ideas out there in individual areas e.g the Bokashi bucket which Cambridgeshire promote; the scheme in Hackney which turns waste from the high rise flats into compost for the garden areas (one man's good idea got rid of a big problem with rats as well);the Wastebuster which is another nifty idea for turning household waste into compost. The secondary benefit for this type of scheme is that the air is not polluted by refuse collection lorries. Mind you please don't let the Environment Agency turn all this good work into a bureaucratic nightmare.

But all that we do to improve our impact can only amount to 20%. The big polluters are in the commercial sector, many of them global companies. This is where pressure has to be brought to bear. Perhaps Tescos and Shell could work locally to provide community renewables schemes. That would really be putting their money where there mouths are. It could be a condition of planning permission being granted.

Excellent post (18) by Chris Rijk – it demonstrates the complexity of environmental issues and why a few ‘Green Taxes’ are not only a political cop-out, but also, in practical terms a complete waste of time.

The point, if any, of a ‘Green Tax’ on air travel or less efficient cars should surely be to reduce our use of them. This simply will not happen: has Road Tax reduced road use or petrol duty reduced fuel consumption? As Fruning Graplecard (post 5) demonstrates, we will continue to pay up to 100% tax, if we have to, to do the things that we want to. Looking at it the other way then, what a ‘Green Tax’ will do is to rely on environmentally damaging practices to raise needed revenue. This then creates an inbuilt disincentive for the Treasury to engage in environmentally friendly policies.

If the Lib-Dems want to demonstrate their Green credentials, far better would be to stick to a fair means based tax system, including the top 50p band and to commit to invest the income generated in the implementation of Green policies, such as facilitating the development of effective electrically powered vehicles and, perhaps through a 0% VAT rate on them encourage people to exercise their free choice in buying them as well as installing their own wind turbines and solar panels and insulating their houses more effectively, etc, etc.

Incidentally, sensibly discussing these sorts of issues, rather than, for instance trying to turn the Lib-Dems forthcoming tax debate into a pink, frothy personality crisis for Sir Ming Campbell (as was attempted today in The World at One) would demonstrate a much higher journalistic standard from the 91Èȱ¬.

Concerning the Nat Libs, we are on rocky ground. They want extra funds to attract females and admit that they are short of ethnics. Without being vulgar, which is very difficult, extra funds for horse or cow manure should be available for those members who have peculiar tastes!

Personalities are vitally important. Can you imagine a better explanation of Watergate than Gore Vidal's? - "he (NIXON) was simply acing out his Big Loser nature, and, in the process, he turned being a loser into a perfect triumph by managing to lose the presidency in a way bigger and more original than anyone else had ever lost it before".
We even have a Big Loser of our very own G Brown; watch him self-destruct with similar gumption and inventiveness!

But aren't Personalities even MORE important than Issues? Not the "who would you most like to have a drink in the pub with?" but real personality that will help you understand how a politician will behave when confronted by a situation that hasn't been anticipated.

For example, who would have thought, looking at the New Labour manifesto, that we would be following the US into a really iffy war in 2003? Probably not many people would see the link between a "modern socialist" from the "centre left" and a war of aggression. But when you ask instead, "would you expect a spin-happy political opportunist who values power over principle to take us into to a really iffy war?" suddenly your question has a more revealing answer.

That's the reality - judging the personality is how we judge the issues that haven't come up yet. Now if only we could get a little better at analysing the personalities...

I like the sound of a party that talks things through, with the public and themselves. Sought of makes sense somehow. As for personalities, I think we can write the last century up as "The rise of the Ego."

The environmental threat should be tackled with an omin-directional approach to all the issues. This includes making business responsible for its environmental footprints accross the entire scope of its operations. Taxation on public footprints can have influence on both actions and costs, so I see no contradiction or moral dilemma in behaving responsibly towards the environment. With focus and effort a new approach could be created relatively smoothly and rapidly, all of these things being prerequisites for success. Failure is not an option.

I am in agreement with you that it would be nice to hear more about issues this conference time than 'personality' (or lack of it in Menzies case!!-sorry). If you want this too- why not take the lead as afterall you are the chief political correspondant to the national broadcasting company- I am very sure Tom Bradby will follow anything you do as you must be his hero- so please lets hear about some things that really matter for the next few weeks- wouldn't it be nice not to be told that Blair is going soon and that somebody would have to take over etc etc for the next few weeks- the labour party conference is coming back near your home Nick so if I see you there I might ask you this in person!!

P.S. Did you say that the cabinet is going to be consumted on something- have you taken your pills today Nick!!!!!!

Of course personalities are just as important as issues - if any of the obvious personalities didn't have the backing of their party then any policies they may wish to introduce automatically become suspect, this conference season has something new (for me, at least) the first time where we have three party leaders having to prove to their parties that they are worthy of the position they have been elected to.

How we view our politicians is an important issue. We demand a higher level of probity from our politicians (and quite rightly so). Benn accuses the media (or was it just Nick?) of concentrating on personalities rather than issues, the clouds under which Mandelson resigned (3 times) and those under which Blunkett resigned (twice) can only be examined in context and unfortunately that means reflecting upon the personalities involved. Similarly Prescott's recent behaviour invited comment on both the alleged abuse of position as well as the role of the DPM in the current government. Given that MPs are so absurdly human (despite the illusion that they are somehow better than the rest of us) it can be seen how closely linked personalities and issues can become.

It appears politicians have a paradox on their hands, Wilson, Thatcher, and Blair have enjoyed the benefits a cult of the personality offers, it suited them and when it worked for them all was fine. As soon as the personality becomes the issue then we are told the electorate should concentrate on the more important issues.

A green tax has the potential of being very unpopular, after all look what happened when the Chancellor decided to increase fuel taxes, it will also become pointless, after all what will happen when everyone is as green as they can be? The devil is in the detail and, unfortunately, the Lib Dem's haven't a very good track record of convincing the electorate that their taxation schemes are workable.

Much as I admire Benn, he's dissimulating slightly if that is really what he says. After all, he has made a very successful career out of being a 'personality' himself.

Ah, so that's where you've been, thoroughly engrossed in the riveting speeches of GB. I don't envy you, but I am looking forward to your programme on Saturday!

PS I do agree with you that "pershonalities" and "ishoos" both matter. My complaint is that you often report very minor "pershonality" stories while ignoring very significant "ishoo" ones.

It's true Brown is not collegiate - for instance he singlehandedly blocked the cabinet from adopting the euro, something Charles Clarke is still fuming about. Was he wrong on this issue? Should he have been more "collegiate" and put being popular with his colleagues above the country's needs?

Nick - why are you and other mainstream journalists not covering te way Alan Johnson had leadership web-sites set up BEFORE the "Please resign" letters were sent to Blair? It's equivalent to Portillo putting in phone lines to prepare to unseat Major. Looks like Johnson (and his Blairite pals) were the ones doing the plotting, not Gordon, who only got involved after the event.

My view is that what we do and how we relate to the world are key. Character, policy, and outcome are perspectives on a single thread. Here, it’s important to keep your eyes on the horizon and your feet on the ground. The look and feel is, ultimately, more important than a frivolity. This is where, I think, politicians, media, and the public can lose it.

I notice you use the word debate, Nick. I think, this is mistaken. Framing the world as a debate just adds to one side hammering the other. Thesis, or discussion, would be a more honest appraisal of reality, policies, and outcomes. By shifting from the winner takes all position to something more akin to helping everyone become winners, maturity might develop.

Whether it’s in our personal lives, domestic politics, or the greater clash of civilisations, structure and desire play their part. One things flows into another. The wheel turns. The world is in a mess at every level but, I think, a new dynamic is emerging from the troubles. At the heart of it, I suggest, debate or gaming the system, is becoming yesterdays news.

Empires are built on positive consensus.

Policies only deal with the expected. Personality is what counts when it comes to the unexpected as our esteemed PM has shown :

Death of Diana - Photo-opportunity. Sensitivity, reverence, compassion. Berate Queen for behaving like human being.

Foot and Mouth - Chance to pay back farmers for fuel tax demonstrations. Procrastinate and then panic. Burn a few million cows.

9/11 - Photo-opportunity. Make sure standing right next to Bush. Commit to shooting Afghans for indefinite period.

Iraq - Display loyalty to Bush in return for pat on head. Cook up evidence and mislead Parliament. Slaughter a few hundred thousand Iraqis. Leave successor to sort out mess.

7/7 - Shoot Brazilian.

As a matter of interest Nick, on the subject of global warming, its worth a quick look at this recent 91Èȱ¬ Website news item about the role played by the English Channel in the make-up of our native animal species.

(copy and paste)

At the risk of being burned at the steak for challenging the current rather neat and tidy notion that human activity is almost entirely responsible for global warming, I'd like to draw attention to the graph illustrating global temperature change going back 700,000 years.

If the yoyo had been invented then, it would have provided a good description of how the temperature of what is now the UK has changed from the Arctic to the Tropical in a regular pattern going back half a million years before humans even evolved.

If you want the Earth to cool down, just sit down with a cold drink and wait...

I suppose that it is par for the course that politicos (and especially the LibDems) would immediately see the (further) tax raising potential of the "green issues".
Doesn't everyone know by now, that green taxes will never influence voter behaviour ? They will become "politically unacceptable" long before they influence behaviour, as several studies have shown.

The answer has to be incentives to change.
Much more tricky for the politicos, since this will require handing money back to the population, (often to it's least 'deserving' segments) and carefully thought out schemes.

Much simpler to grab the knee-jerk, more-taxes option, so favoured by the corrupt green lobby groups.

Nick,

I really would love to see the day when the tax burden fell on each person according to their ability to pay.

The problem is that tax allowances and benefits favour the middle classes, are regressive on the poor and are easily avoided by the rich. I am no egalitarian by any means but the notion of "fair" taxation is pure illusion.

What is needed is a simple, understandable and transparent set of rules with as few allowances as possible but, more importantly, is accepted as "fair" by the majority. From my perspective here in america, that looks like the present UK system, certainly by comparison with the US tax code.

The Lib-Dems need to do a lot more than tinker with the tax system but they are aiming only at the median voter. It makes sense in the current situation. Just as Buchanan and Tullock predict.

I seem to recall a quote from Alexis De Tocqueville who said that the republic would endure until the Congress discovered how to bribe the electorate with their own money.

Quite.

Do we really want to hear the truth, or is it simply easier for us to snuggle up in the warm embrace of reassuring deception?
The Hungarian PM has just made the mistake of admitting that his government lied.
We all 'know' that our politicians (of most persuasions) continually lie, but we do not want to face up to it, any more than we wish to face up to the uncomfortable personal truths from which we normally hide.

Like Howard I am not convinced that we humans are entirely responsible for global warming, but there is no doubt that our actions have had a damaging effect on this planet. If you have chance,read Mikhail Gorbachev's Manifesto for the Earth

These have been some of the most stimulating resposes I've seen on a blog! If only are decision makers were as intelligent!