The Bewilderness

Recommending ...

I am a great fan of Alistair Reynolds, the science fiction author. His new novel, Blue Remembered Earth, is out. I recommend the trailer.

Decimal pointers

If you were to write an article on the ten most important advances in science and technology, what would you include and what would you exclude? I take this David DiSalvo article that I flagged last year and return after an interval of some months. The indications that seemed slightly irrelevant then retain that effect now. Why would desalination or plasma arc waste disposal count as disruptive technology?

Putting the discordant set of examples: radical innovations sitting side by side with existing capabilities, what interests me is DiSalvo's exclusions. Battery advances are cited twice alongside neuroscience, regenerative medicine, electronic paper and scanning technology. 3D printing, a whole swathe of biotechnology and advances in materials science are all left out.

This is not a criticism; since it is almost impossible to accommodate any number of choices. Already some of the developments appear restricted to laboratories for the foreseeable future. But stem cells and electronic paper are now strong contenders for making a radical impact this side of 2015.  

Silence and impotent

The new draft of the fiscal compact reverses all of the advantages that Great Britain was supposed to have gained in December. Any concessions over observer attendance were vetoed in the new draft which requires ratification before you can even have a seat at the table, by invitation. But you can attend one of two a year. Non-€ countries have some crumbs of discomfort. (George Osborne as a silent observer in the talks must have watched impassively whilst they deride his presence)

Of greater concern is the role of the European Court of Justice in this arrangement, acting as enforcer for economic governance. This serves two purposes: acting as a precursor to incorporation into the main treaty corpus of the EU; and, sending a message to Britain, that political will  from twenty-six overcomes any objection by one member. Politics trumps law.

The loneliness of the long-distance libertarian

Ron Paul came fourth in the South Carolina with 13 percent of the vote and has received some local endorsements. The comparison with 2008 is worth considering: from 3.8 to 13 percent. How much of this is due to the economic misery and political disillusionment with the mainstream? For now, Paul's activities within the GOP have thwarted the groundswell of any potential third party straddling social and economic liberalism.

Paul has already performed far above media and political expectations; on some criteria, he is the second most successful candidate after Romney in the primaries so far. A win for Paul in a state would completely alter perceptions. 

Can Paul win? This depends upon two factors: how far the GOP is willing to support Mitt Romney in a flawed quest for electability and, how far, conservatives would swing behind Paul in the event that Gingrich and Santorum fell away?

Surrey should say sorry

Surrey County Council have rejected the government's council tax freeze alongside the extra grant that comes with it. The press release is deliberately selective: identify gap and line it up with an item of expenditure. In this case: road maintenance.

The council’s cabinet is set to discuss rejecting the Government’s freeze because it would lead to a £70m financial shortfall over five years.

A council spokesman said that was equivalent to wiping out Surrey’s road maintenance budget for more than two years.

This shortfall is defined by the council as "long term pain", or by the taxpayer, as an opportunity to reduce waste. 

This is the same council that lets highway verges become flytip wastes and then persecutes those who try to clean up their neighbourhood, with fees and punitive administration. Surrey County Council may be run by Tories but there is not a conservative principle at play in its words or actions.

The Tax Payers Alliance notes that Surrey had, at least ten people (pdf file), earning over £100,000 for the year 2009-2010. Enough said.

Acceleration of integration

The draft compact on fiscal stability is dragging out and is designed to hold existing members hostage who are dependent on bail-outs. Only those who sign up to the compact will be eligible for monetary support from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). This effectively sends a message to the Irish electorate: vote Yes or forfeit European support.

It has also divided the Czech polity, with Eurosceptic parties favouring a referendum and, no surprise here, Europhile parties preferring a parliamentary solution. The arguments echo former debates in the UK: an intergovernmental treaty does not confer powers to the European Union or the subject is too complex for the simple minded folk who actually voted them into office. This leads to a simple truism: European politicians with a charisma bypass prefer an electoral bypass.

The mischief makers, France and Germany, make life even hotter for the Eurosceptics with a new six point plan for the summit in late January. Get your veto ready, Cameron! They want a common corporate tax base, co-ordination on other taxes, Commission control over regional funds (so they can be redirected to the subsidy junkies on the periphery), a Tobin tax and the lowering of labour taxes. The crisis is accelerating the shift towards a two speed Europe and we are on the outside looking in. Such integration cannot be passed in this Parliament. 

Stagnationalism: UK in the age of austerity

The coalition is entering a phase of division of backbiting, where the differences between leaders and parties are becoming much clearer to the public. The Liberal Democrats have moved towards a pernicious narrative of public sector protection: promoting the smallest reforms necessary to curb the public sector borrowing requirement and preening themselves as guardians of the vulnerable. Whether it be health, education or social rights, they attempt to outflank Labour at the expense of Liberalism.

The Liberal Democrats are divided between Left and Right. A predictable Tribune article notes that the strategy of differentiation has silenced the Orange Book wing and upplayed the profiles of Huhne and Cable. Yet frustration must be mounting within the Tory party. To continue postponing the necessary reforms on the supply side, reducing the cost of jobs and regulation, because Vince Cable is a thorn in the side of the economy, must be galling (And the Liberal Democrats are old Labour for the public sector professionals). To find that our policy on Europe is subjected to policy paralysis because do-nothing is better than undermining the coalition breeds anger on the right.

Will the coalition find a better configuration, easing pressures through shared policies in other areas? Both parties have an incentive to play up differences in order to appeal to their base. Yet, the pro-market liberalism identified in the early days of the coalition has certainly been submerged. Is this a reaction to the political needs of each party and the polling evidence, as Tory dominance in numbers begins to count? Was the classical liberalism wish-fulfillment on the part of the media? Or does this disappearance herald dissent amongst the Liberal democrats, who find that they share more common ground with socially liberal Tories than they realised?

The stresses in the coalition may ebb and flow: but the real calamity for this government is that Liberal Democrats footdragging on reform may have reduced the flexibility needed to deregulate. We are in the worst of all possible worlds: facing the necessity of austerity with an economy hobbled by the legacy of New Labour's regulation, defended by the ultimate insiders of the producer interests. Stagnation beckons...

Hurrah for curatorial neglect!

You never know what you may find in the odd nook and cranny. Pull out some forgotten drawer of a "an old wooden cabinet" in the British Geological Survey. What treasures lie within unrevealed? A child sits up: "Doubloons, gold sovereigns, diamonds!" Nothing so mundane!

Dr Howard Falcon-Lang, a palaeontologist found a collection of slides from 1846, never catalogued, that had been compiled by Charles Darwin, Joseph Hooker and other members of his circle. This fabulous find has now been catalogued and studied for history and science. From the date, this will provide additional insight into Darwin's notes; perhaps anomalous references to specimens unseen can be reviewed with new clarity.

The slides are works of art in themselves. Instead of the small snapshots that we remember from school laboratories, these are up to half a foot in length, allowing the biologist to scroll across the specimen. Their journey is one of logistical legerdemain:

Royal Holloway, University of London said the fossils were 'lost' because Hooker failed to number them in the formal "specimen register" before setting out on an expedition to the Himalayas. In 1851, the "unregistered" fossils were moved to the Museum of Practical Geology in Piccadilly before being transferred to the South Kensington's Geological Museum in 1935 and then to the British Geological Survey's headquarters near Nottingham 50 years later, the university said. 

Let us hope there are mysteries awaiting in other cabinets of curios.

When is a veto not a veto?

We are told that European Union institutions will have no sway over the new treaty that is being negotiated on an intergovernmental basis. This is nonsense. Nonsense on stilts. After the draft was leaked on Open Europe's website, integrationist MEPs pushed for changes to the draft. Their goal was to ensure compatibility between the treaty and existing European institutions. European Parliament leaders will also be able to address Eurozone summits. Through a web of permissions and references, the intergovernmental treaty will act as a bolt-on to existing arrangements, supported by the Commission. Dan Hannan's FU will seamlessly merge with the EU, in practice.

This forms part of a wider spread of dissatisfaction within the European Parliament at their perceived intergovernmental failure to resolve the crisis. Of course the solution for these is more integration. Soon, media coverage in the United Kingdom will catch up with the brutal sidelining of Cameron's veto, ignored in practice by other EU members.   

The Green and the Good

Rupert Reed, philosopher at the University of East Anglia and green activist, has launched a proposal for a jury, sitting above the House of Lords with the power of veto over all legislation, on behalf of future generations. A number of serious questions arise over the role of such a body and whether this proposal would meet the needs that Reed sets for itself. One has to ask, with some scepticism, whether a democratic body wielding such strong powers, would be willing to act for future generations as opposed to whatever contemporary issues seize its attention. Power politicises.

In the Grauniad's environmental blog, Reed plaintively claims that radical ideas deserve an air and with a lowest common denominator insight, observes that some progress to the mainstream. He then chooses recycling and abolition of slavery to make his case, because the consequences of ecological disaster will constrain the opportunities of future descendants. He likens this to slavery.

The blogger, Damien Carrington, then points out that the idea can be traced back to Burke, probably further, if one shoehorned Plato etc.. And the basis of slavery ensnaring future generations is applied more commonly to the notion of government debt, mortgaging future tax revenues for present consumption. The Green Party does not recognise this form of slavery, if their support of 'green quantitative easing' is believed. That said, the two principles do share this common perspective. Robert Reed may even have copied this idea from conservatism and recast it in a different form.

Reed's solution to this perceived problem of contemporary consumption is a jury called the Grauniads of the Future, acting on behalf of intergenerational justice. I am sure his report is detailed, full of safeguards, and key controls to ensure that this body does the work. It is the assumptions that worry me:

The core idea is both radical and straightforward: a council of "Guardians of Future Generations", chosen like a jury from the general public, would sit above the existing law-making bodies and have two core powers. A power to veto legislation that threatened the basic needs and interests of future people and the power to force a review, following suitable public petition, of any existing legislation that threatens the interests of future people.

For the Greens, the basic needs and interests of future people are valid for they will stave off ecological disaster and set up a sustainable economy (so goes the narrative). Yet, intergenerational justice is more important than the bodies through which it is implemented. If the Green Party becomes disillusioned with a parliamentary path that fails to meet their needs, then they will seek to cicumvent or constrain its powers. The first iteration grounds itself in the notion of democratic renewal via a jury system; how long before such iterations are recast as committees of experts or panels of the 'green and the good'. The latent authoritarianism within the green agenda is slowly seeping out.