Hillary and Obama’s biofuels policy driving America down the wrong road

So Hillary has had it. Obama is the de facto Democratic nominee. And what a depressing spectacle the whole thing has been – and I’m not talking about the mutual slagging-off contest. I’m talking the policy – such as it was.

At the first electoral test, the Iowa caucuses, both candidates came out strongly in support of government subsidies for corn-based biofuels. The US subsidises fuel made from maize by 51 cents a US gallon – that’s about 7p a litre - and Iowa is a major corn growing state.

But in North Carolina this week they began talking about “reviewing” and “re-tooling” the policy. Funny that, until you realise that North Carolina is a livestock state and a major importer of corn to feed all those hogs, cows and steers. The biofuels programme has contributed to the massive increase in corn prices and dairy, pig and beef producers are hurting.

The issue is complex. Biofuels reduce dependence on fossil fuels. But they also take land, water and energy to produce – especially in temperate climates like the US and Europe. That has helped to push up world food prices by around 20% according to recent reports.

There is an answer: Brazil has been producing biofuels for decades and a third of vehicle fuel used in Brazil is sugar-based alcohol. For it’s not just the Brazilian chicas who are hot – the tropical Brazilian sun converts more efficiently into plant energy than it’s pallid equivalent in North America or Europe. The Brazilians have also been perfecting distilling and production techniques so they are by far the most efficient producers.

But can they sell to the US or Europe? No. The freedom-loving Americans are more interested in protecting their corn farmers – clobbering stock farmers and consumers in the process. Europe also has a tariff of between 10 and 20 euro cents a litre, which disadvantages imports, but is not quite as bad as free-trading America which subsidises biofuel exports as well, distorting international as well as domestic markets. 

Of course we should all be importing biofuels from Brazil. But neither Obama nor Hillary has made the other obvious point - that Americans should consume less fuel. Indeed, Hillary has been trucking around the primary states in gas-swigging SUVs to show America’s white trash how like them she really us.

Only candidate is against the biofuel subsidies. John McCain. 
    
Phillip Oppenheim

Two nice, young men…

Thirteen years ago, a nice, young(ish) man spent a cheery Bank Holiday weekend grinning over the worst local election results in Tory history. Two years later, he was running the “new, young country” of his dreams.

That it all went so horribly wrong for Tony Blair (politically, at least, for financially he seems to have cleaned up) may have something to do with his treatment of power as the end, rather than the means.
 
Blair came into government in 1997 with no real, clear set of beliefs. “What works is best”, was the managerial, media-driven mantra of the age.

But what works is not always clear. It helps if you know why things work – and having lost one ideology in the ‘80s, the only thing left for Blair’s New Labour was power for its own sake. The rest is history.

Last weekend, another nice young(ish) man no-doubt smiled over the worst Labour local election results in 40 years. He may well come to power in two years. Let’s hope he doesn’t make the same mistake.

Phillip Oppenheim

Brown is Blair without the charm – and there ain’t much else left

Eight short months ago, Gordon Brown was surfing the high breakers of British politics like Patrick Swayzee in Point Break. The great and the grim of the business world lined up with the great and the gross of the chateratti to enter his big ministerial tent – Digby Jones and Julia Neuberger spring to mind. Tory MP Quentin Davies had been wooed across the floor. Tory losers like John Bercow and Patrick Mercer were pleased to serve as advisers at the Great Brown’s pleasure.

Then, splash, crunch. Isn’t life just like that? Right when it’s all going swimmingly, you catch one and it’s a swirling, white vortex - downwards.

How did things all go so wrong? Labour ministers have been told to blame Brown’s woes on the “global downturn sparked by American sub-prime crisis.” That is uncannily like the message we Tories were all told to get across during the early ‘90s economic crisis. Never mention the world “recession” without the antecedent “world”, party chairman Chris Patten incanted at every opportunity.

And there was some truth in that. There was a world recession. Except that ours was worse than most others because of mistakes made by Nigel Lawson in the late ‘80s.

In the same way, our current downturn is - and will be - worse than Europe’s because of Brown’s errors. He failed spectacularly to stash cash away during the fat years, so now the lean ones are upon us there is nothing left in the government’s pot.  And under Brown, our economy has become even more skewed than ever to consumption and housing and away from investment and production.

People at last are beginning to rumble what a mediocre chancellor Brown in fact was. But there is more. For 10 years Brown benefited from not being Blair. He sniped across Downing Street at Blair and let his gofers hint that Brown was something different – the true soul and heart of Labour.

But any difference was style rather than substance. Now Brown is boss, that is becoming ever more painfully apparent. And yet that difference in style matters. Blair would emerge from each crisis with his self-deprecating, boyish smile – and you had to sort of smile with him.

When Brown smiles, he looks like he’s about to sink his fangs into your neck. Brown is Blair without the charm. And without the charm, there ain’t much else left.  

Phillip Oppeheim

Imagine Davies, Bercow and Mercer’s Sunday breakfast

As Quentin Davies, John Bercow and Patrick Mercer MPs fumble, bleary-eyed for the Sunday morning box of Fruit n’ Fibre this morning, they may be reflecting painfully on the issue of timing. Opportunism fine, guys. But get the timing right, yeah? 

Phillip Oppenheim

Reasons to vote for and against Bojo, Ken – and the other guy

It says something about the people’s confidence in the body politic that we have a mayoral election for one of the world’s great cities, with two over-the-top celeb-politicians and a gay ex-police chief - and yet the public’s interest hovers somewhere below the result of The Apprentice.

In my travels in the capital I have seen only one poster for Bojo – and that was listing at an appropriately crazy angle outside Tory HQ in Chelsea. In the interests of balance, I also spotted one for Ken in a sink estate in Southwark – and that was upside down.

When Bojo visited the King’s Road last week he was mobbed – but only by his own helpers. The populace hurried on by.  

Anyway, here are some reasons for and against voting for Bojo, Ken…and the other guy.

First Bojo – he would be a dead cert for my vote except for one thing: he is against the £25 congestion charge for high polluting vehicles. Sorry, Bojo, I live in a road where I battle for parking with giant behomeths, which also happen to poison the air, block London’s narrow roads slowing us all down – and are 50 times more likely to kill my kids if they happen to run into each other. £25 is not enough. Hopefully a decent City recession will blast a few of them back to the finance company.

Now for, Ken – in his favour is the CC. I was initially an anti. But now it has been extended to my leafy part of the world, I save around 5 minutes a day travelling to work for a mere £5 a week – or whatever it costs. Ken’s regressive taxation has driven the generality off the roads, making way for the likes of me. In the good old commie days, the Soviets had Zil lanes, reserved for the Zil limos of the apparat. Ken’s given me something almost as good. Hooray, I say.

And when I do travel by bus, the CC has speeded up the journey. On the other hand, we all know the bendy buses are about as suited to London’s roads as Tom Cruise was to Nicole Kidman – complete mismatch. Watching those things trying to get around is like observing a giraffe trying to shag a warthog – only less interesting.

As a bus traveller, I avoid the Bendys whenever I can – they are slow and creaky. As a car driver, they take two lanes where a double-decker takes one. And I can only thank God I don’t cycle. Bendy buses may seem like a good idea in the broad, boulevards of Germany – thanks significantly to the RAF – but in London? Hello!

Unfortunately for Bojo, the Bendies have already been paid for, so getting rid of them for some cobweb-tinted vision of the Return of the Routemaster is not on – and anyway, Bojo seems to have got his sums badly wrong on all of that. Ken, at least, has admitted he was wrong and will not be ordering any more.

And the other guy, the Lib Dem? The only man with a sensible policy on cannabis – very brave, well done. But apart from that, sorry, call me a bluff old traditionalist if you like, but he just seems a bit…how should I put it? Wet?

I have spoken. Now go and vote. 

Phillip Oppenheim

A tale of two companies - and how British Telecom are crap!

Isn’t it interesting the customer service you receive. Having moved across the road (finally) into our new house, as the man of the house I had my priorities to sort out. That means ensuring Sky is installed and that broadband is working.

For ease – lets take Sky. I carry my Sky plus box over. The friendliest man calls round today in his van for a pre booked appointment. He drills a hole in the wall. Puts up a new Sky dish, as he doesn’t want to leave us with an old one. Put a phone line in. Cleans up after himself, and we get charged £50 for the service.

Now lets take Broadband – and British Telecom.

We let BT know weeks in advance the date we are moving house and that we would like broadband and the telephone number to follow us. It is literally less than 40 metres from one house to the other.

We are told everything will take place on April 24th, and we will get notice before the phone line goes down. I get up to do some work, and guess what – the phone line is down.

Several hours later and the phone is working in the new house. Fine – jolly good. We call and are then told broadband will follow a couple of hours later – definitely by 5pm. No broadband at 5pm, we are told 8pm. None at 8pm. We are told midnight. I go over at midnight, am on the phone to one of BTs call centres in India who have me unscrewing the plate on the telephone socket and they have me waggling wires.

MANY MANY MANY calls later, broadband is in, but giving an extremely woeful signal. Every time I call I am told there is a problem at our exchange and that engineers are there. How funny – I can see our exchange from my window and no one is there, and no one has been there whenever I call. Then the excuses changed from it being a problem at the exchange to broadband needing to “bed down for 10 days”.

Can I have an engineer please now, as I suspect there is an issue with my line at the socket. Oh no – there is a problem at the exchange – please wait another 24 hours. By Sunday night, having called about 6 different numbers, and having had a lady on the phone for an hour – who thought she had solved the problem until I told her she had connected me to a neighbours broadband by wifi, I finally lost my temper. Could I get put through to BT wholesale who apparently take the decision as to whether you can have an engineer – could I hell.

I manage to get a number of someone in the UK, and explain that perhaps (you know I’m not technical now) the fact that several wires from inside the face plat aren’t connected to the inside of the telephone jack may explain why it gets a crap signal when I use the proper jack, but an acceptable one when I use the internal master jack.

But Sir – you do realise if the fault is yours, you will be charged over £100 call out, plus £90 an hour. I said quite frankly I don’t care – I need an engineer.

Today – two likely lads in two vans roll up. They came in, unscrew the socket and do what they have to do. They must have been here for about 3 minutes. Hey presto. Guess what. It’s working.

So why does BT have to completely bullshit you with the “the engineers are working on the issue at the exchange” when for four days I’ve been telling them that there’s an issue with the socket, and have had to fight tooth and nail to get an engineer. Their inane questions about whether the hub has filters, or is it near a microwave oven (I kid you not) are enough to test anyone’s patience!

I suppose I shouldn’t moan really. It took 3 weeks to sort out the issue last time, and BT ended up sending wine and flowers as they admitted they had been poor at customer service.

It really is an interesting parallel though. Sky charge you £50 to move house – which includes a new dish , cables and they ensure the service is working before you leave. BT don’t charge you when you move, but if something doesn’t work then they want to screw you if they can’t sort things out remotely!The think is, I’ve never spoken to a call centre yet who can attach wires to a piece of equipment in a phone socket!

Jonathan Sheppard

PS - I believe my fellow blogger has had a run in with a certain broadband provider before. Type Phillip Oppenheim and Bulldog into google to find out more!

If you live by the spiv, you die by the spiv – Levy represents so much that is wrong with politics

It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for Gordon Brown – but I urge you to resist the temptation.
The news that “Lord” Levy had stuck his well-heeled boot into the prime minister should be taken for what it is: book – and self - promotion.

Yet spare no pity for Brown. There is, and never was, a Rizzla’s width between Blair and Brown on policy, as is becoming increasingly apparent. Brown, like Blair, signed up to the corrupt sale of peerages in which Levy was pivotal. Brown, like Blair, raised hardly a whimper about the failure to honour the ’97 election pledge to democratise the House of Lords.

Brown himself was doshed-up by numerous dubious characters like Geoffrey Robinson MP, whose short-lived job as Treasury Paymaster General could not have been unconnected with his generous support of Brown’s office - not to mention the flash gaffs he made available for Brown’s relaxation and pleasure.

What is becoming increasingly apparent is what a poisonous mob these Labour people are. They came to us in ’97 all creepy-smiley nice-guy, but all they have in common is mutual contempt, allied to an unhealthy lust for power at almost any cost.

Sure, we Tories fell out. But it was over policy, not personality. The main protagonists under Major – Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Rifkind, Howard etc etc – all remained at least cordial and often on very good terms.

Of course I exclude from that the most toxic of the Tory eurosceptics. But where are they now? Bemoaning the fate of the Euro, no doubt. Woops – maybe not.

But I digress – New Labour was backed from the word go by a bunch of self-serving spivs. Now Labour can do no more for them, the spivs have turned and are hastening their end.      

Phillip Oppenheim

April 23rd, St George and all that jazz…

I have always been of the view that St George’s Day should be a public holiday here in England. Well I would say that of course wouldn’t I, as its my birthday. So today I shall be celebrating turning 33, and may wear an England rugby top to celebrate my Englishness.  But is that all I can do to celebrate my identity?

I always think you feel your identity stronger when you are somewhere where you aren’t from. By that I mean I feel more Northern when I am in London than in the North. It’s what differentiates me. I speak to people on trains. You Southern softies don’t. I felt more English when I lived in America. Why? Well because it differenetiated me. I remeber as a kid being constantly to ask to say something by Americans who “just loves” my accent. Pity when I came back aged ten I had a bit of an American accent and was known as Hank the Yank for a good few years by my classmates.

Anyway - the point is that I was proud to be English. But why in the past have English people been almost ashamed to show their Englishness. The Scots, Irish and Welsh are proud. Could it be because showing your Englishness has been typified by hooliganism associated with football, and just drinking too much? Is that what being English is all about?

Of course it isn’t. So why won’t a politician take the bull by the horns and offer a public holiday on St George’s Day? What a populay politician that would be. It’s from the school that offers better batter and bigger chips. Give the people what they want - and what Englishman or woman wouldn’t want a national holiday to celebrate their counrty.

The questions is - will a Scottish Prime Minsiter offer this?

PS:- In the meantime why not have a look at the St George’s Day message from Roger Helmer and Chris Heaton Harris

Jonathan Sheppard

New politics or same old?

If you want to see how far removed both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are from what Obama nebulously terms the “new politics”, take a look at their collective line on the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA.

Negotiated by Mr Clinton in 1993, NAFTA remains one of the few enduring legacies of the charming and occasionally raunchy, but ultimately insubstantial Clinton years.

Of course if you believe that politicians and bureaucrats know better than the aggregate of millions of individual decisions which make up the free market, you will not support free trade. And there are many arguments against NAFTA, such as the poorer NAFTA countries such as Mexico do not “protect” their workers. But then if everyone had to have exactly the same labour and other regulations to be able to trade, the global economy would grind to a halt.

Hillary knows that.  In her memoirs, she trumpeted her husband’s “successes on NAFTA.” Only last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains “committed” to NAFTA’s “free” trade structure.

And Obama, scion of the “new politics” is playing the same game by vaguely promising to reform NAFTA - while quietly assuring business leaders he will do no such thing. For Obama knows that reforming NAFTA is neither possible nor desirable.

Both are pandering to people’s belief that their problems are down to someone else – preferably Mexicans, Canadians and Colombians who won’t be voting in these elections – rather than their own fault for guzzling too much food, gas and other goodies allied with poor education, which is one of the structural problems of the US economy.
 
It’s an easy sell. Americans are both insular and illiterate on economic matters. A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that even Republican voters believe by 2 to 1 that free trade is bad for the U.S. economy. In January, Fortune magazine found 68 percent believes other countries “are benefiting the most from free trade, not the U.S.”

In fact, it’s not only poorer Latin American countries which have benefited massively from the US’s belated opening to freer trade with its neighbours. But of course the US has done very well too, with a huge increase in employment since 1993 and no sign of the much predicted “giant sucking sound” as jobs and investment head south of the Rio Grande.

Clinton and Obama on NAFTA - new politics, or same old, same old? You decide.
Oh, I nearly forgot – only one candidate is brave enough to stick up for the benefits of NAFTA and free-trade: John McCain – he deserves election on those grounds alone.

Phillip Oppenheim

Things can only get better…no wonder more old Prezza tried to eat himself to death!

Here’s a fact: inequalities in income under this government have got worse, both before and after tax. To put matters more brutally: the rich have got richer under Labour – relatively, while the poor have got poorer. And after the abolition of the 10p tax bands, things will get worse.

Delve into the more arcane recesses of the HMRC website and you will find a table showing that between 1999-2007, the pre-tax share of income of the bottom 1%, 5% and 10% and 25% and 50% of earners has fallen - while the share of the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% all rose. The after-tax figures make little difference.

If you don’t believe me, look at the Commons answer on the subject from Treasury minister Angela Eagle for July 17th 2007. I’m glad that Angie was forced to choke out that reply, because the rise in inequality under the Tories was a rallying cry for old Trots like her.

In fact movements in inequality varied in the Tory years. Overall, though, Angie and her gang had a point. Income did become more unequal between ’79 and ‘97. The excuse – and it was a decent one - was that the Conservatives began by dismantling a penal tax regime and that economic reforms delivered massively improved prosperity across all income groups.

In fairness, this government has also delivered an overall increase in wealth – up to now, anyway. But they have little excuse for increasing inequality. So what went so wrong?

First, they promised what they could not deliver. To take one small example, Gordon Brown came to the Treasury in ’97 on an election pledge of taxing the non-doms. Non doms are, as we know, often very rich people who live in this country but pay no tax. Yet nothing happened for a decade – and we all know what happened next.

Then, in an attempt to produce a “fair society”, Brown micromanaged the tax system by introducing a new 10p tax band and tax credits.

The theory behind tax credits is good. The interaction of the tax and benefits system often disincentivises people from going to work. The Tory government struggled with the problem and didn’t really come up with answers.

Tax credits for less-well off workers and families address the problem – in theory. In practice, the tax credits system has been so complex that even the HMRC don’t seem to understand it. Over-payments suddenly reclaimed and under payments not remedied have left thousands of poorer people in a desperate state.
Five years ago Treasury minister Dawn Primarolo admitted “the system has not worked 100% right from the word go”. It still isn’t. Did someone mention joined-up government?

Overall, Brown’s obsessive tinkering with the tax system has mirrored his U-turns on capital gains tax, pensions and savings policy, all of which has been a bonanza for accountants and tax lawyers - without addressing inequality.

And now they’re supposedly concentrating on the 20p band to “simplify” the system. Yeah, right! The truth is that Brown failed to save in the fat years, so now the lean times are coming the government is skint and needs to tax the poor to raise some dosh – at just the time when the economy needs a bit of consumer spending

No wonder poor John Prescott tried to eat himself to death. “Things can only get better..” – remember the new Labour anthem of 1997? Wrong. They just got worse.

Phillip Oppenheim