Drax: long-overdue turning-point

The Drax farce has dragged on for a very long time (several threads here), but there are signs that it might be reaching a crisis point.  Not before time.

Last week, the FT put out a rather tame story that internal Drax emails exist proving Drax knew it was at fault in essentially the ways alleged (some would say 'proved') by the Beeb's Panorama back in 2022.  You can bet that's only the tip of the scandalous iceberg, that has only remained hidden, more or less, because successive governments have become hooked on the (purely notional) boost Drax gives to the "renewables" and "net zero" numbers.  Their addiction is an expensive one, measured in billions of subsidies.  It causes them to parrot the Drax lies in official pronouncements.

Following Panorama, Ofgem was set on to check where Drax was getting its fuel.  They did a crap job, ending with a derisory £25m fine for Drax not having proper records.  The NAO have also found that HMG itself can do no better in justifying the Drax claims of sustainability (on which their entitlement to all those billions rests).  Until now, this seemed to be water off the two ducks' backs.

The FT was Wednesday.  On Friday the Times joined the bandwagon, hosting a belated confession by Claire Coutinho (the last Tory energy secretary) that time should have been called on the whole farce ages ago.  Is a bandwagon about to hit the road?  I know for a fact there are several very strategic short positions in Drax: and you don't have to go very far in energy sector gatherings to meet lobbyists who've clearly been hired to badmouth the company (alongside all those with the exact opposite brief!)  OK, some of the 'anti' is from US environmental NGOs, appalled at the impact Drax's ravenous appetite for their forests is having; but some of it is from altogether more hard-nosed quarters.  Incidentally, we don't do investment advice here.

The timing of all this is critical because Drax has two big asks on Li'l Miliband's desk right now.  (1) It wants approval (and a heap of public money) for the ridiculous 'BECCS' scheme; and because it isn't ready to go ahead with this for a while yet, it wants (2) a heap more public money to keep it in luxury until BECCS money comes rolling in.  I won't bore you with how this all works in their warped minds, and how utterly ludicrous it all is on every rational score: suffice to say there are civil servants who support it, and also politicians.  

Miliband?  Actually, I detect no enthusiasm on his part - most people with half a brain-cell see through the Drax nonsense - but he has his own "notional net zero" agenda (see those earlier Drax threads), and Labour as a whole has its "growth / investment at any cost" agenda, too.

So let's see.  More popcorn, please, for this particular sideshow.  If we now see a serious anti-Drax bandwagon forming, it'll make his decision(s) quite awks.  As the young people say.

ND

Hedging for Whingeing Farmers - part 2

Some valuable practical detail in BTL comments after that last post - very much what I had in mind when writing "very real practical complexities around our simplified account above - which might have made for a genuinely interesting & informative Countryside piece."  Let's take a look at the issues they raised, & some more that I'm chucking in for good measure.

1.  The ability to hedge, even in principle.  (A) Scale.  Jim has suggested the threshold for being able to get into grain futures is 10,000 acres.  There will always be a lower limit (although with spread betting and ETF, that's been getting lower and lower) and certainly I have no better data.  And why shouldn't there be a minimum size / critical mass for any particular viable line of business?  We scorn the pitifully small energy suppliers (well, I do) for their lack of capitalisation, and wonder WTF they got a supply licence from Ofgem in the first place.  Why shouldn't some industries be for the competent Big Boys?  Nobody has a God-given right to set up a "craft" blast furnace just because they fancy.   

1(B).  Credit.  - maybe thought of as an aspect of 1(A), but it's a distinct issue.  It's always the case that a non-creditworthy counterparty (however large) can't get an OTC forward contract.  That's because payment may become due either way, & maybe they ain't good for the potential monies due.  Of course, if you're trading on an exchange (futures), you'll need to put up collateral and pay ongoing margin (if your position is moving out of the money) to minimise the credit risk.  That again may exclude some players if they can't put up the table money.  Again - so what?   

2.  Weather.  As raised by a couple of you.  Yep, this is one of the 'operational risks' that actually has little directly to do with hedging the financial exposures involved (though see 3. below on volume & Basis).  Weather risk will impact on farmers irrespective of market risk - it can impact adversely on timing, quantity and quality.  There was a time, in the late '90s / early '00s, when lots of people believed a big market was going to develop that would offer 'weather derivatives', there seemingly being a vast potential range of applications for such products.  It never really took off (for reasons we might discuss in another post), despite many big players putting in a lot of time, money, people & effort go get it going.  So:  as was mentioned BTL, insurance always was, and remains, the first recourse.  

Insurance, BTW, should always be anyone's fallback if they can't get a satisfactory hedge - and not just for weather, and not just for farmers .  No credit issues, except that naturally you need to be able to afford the premium upfront.  I say 'no issues' but of course as the client, you always have concerns over the creditworthiness of the insurance provider.  it's a heavily regulated sector, for that reason.

3.  Volume.  (Also mentioned BTL.)  Being subject to several unknowns - weather being perhaps the biggest - how does the farmer know exactly how much by volume to be trying to hedge?  This volumetric uncertainty is an intrinsic feature of some sectors, while virtually unknown in others.  The answer, as far as it goes, is easy:  pick a sensible, maybe conservative estimate, and hedge that.  You're then exposed on the balance, be that long or short.  Coupled with weather insurance, it's the best you can do.

4.  'Basis Risk' generally.  In markets where volumetric risk is small (& hence not requiring a whole risk-management discipline of its own), it would be viewed as a subset of the more general category of 'Basis Risk' - where there's an element of exposure remaining even when you've hedged the best that anyone can.  It can arise from a heap of different factors impacting the 'basis' of your hedge vs the basis of your own situation, e.g.:

-  the forward / futures contracts are only traded in lot sizes that don't allow you to create a perfect volume match;

- the settlement of the traded forward / futures is at a location and/or date that doesn't perfectly match your own locational / timing situation;

- the settlement is for a quality or grade of product that doesn't perfectly match that of your own product (e.g. a very special grade of oil for which there is no specific forward contract).  

That last point - quality - was indeed specifically raised in the Countryfile prog - about the only interesting thing that was aired.  They said that weather could affect what type of grain the crop would turn into, in terms of how it would be viewed - and priced - in the market.  I hadn't known that, but it makes perfect sense. 

*   *   *   *   *

To my mind the Countryfile team should have been at least mentioning some of the above, just as they very fairly (and in an easily-understood manner) alluded to the Basis risk of the quality uncertainty.  It's the job of TV to make these things accessible, and the whole of it is no more difficult than the quality point.

Finally, though, we get to Sobers' really interesting - and quite technical - comment that, courtesy of outrageous hanky-panky on the part of the hedge-providers, for the farmer to enter a forward / futures contract they are in practice writing a naked option.  If that terminology doesn't mean anything to you, well (a) I think Sobers explained the essence of the problem well enough, in lay terms; and (b) writing a naked option is about the most dangerous thing you can do in financial trading.

As many of you will know, agriculture isn't my sector.  I've already noted that small players needn't expect to find things just as they'd like them in any sector, so maybe this is really just another manifestation of 'too small'.  That said, to me it's a pretty shocking matter when, within an industry where quality matters so much, there aren't objective standards and assays that can be relied upon for both parties.   The whole of trade finance depends on it.  WTF should agriculture be different to energy, or metals, or pharma?  Yes, fraud happens in any industry, but what Sobers reports is daylight robbery & very depressing.  Is it really a problem for bigger farmers?  In principle there would, IMHO, be a huge opportunity for large, honest players to step into this situation charging a very modest premium for a proper service.

ND 

The BBC & the whingeing farmers of Countryfile

Hansen & partner: disingenuous whinge

The Beeb: everybody has their favourite gripe but where to begin?  From down on the farm at the highly regarded Countryfile, here's just a little straw in the wind.     

Adam Henson is one of their primary reporters, and evidently a genuine (and seemingly prosperous) farmer to boot.  So a couple of episodes ago, he's discussing with his "business partner" the generic farmers' problem of money, that vital perennial crop.  Here's what the two of them say (20:12 mins in):

"The trouble with grain is, it's a world commodity price ... we don't determine the price at all ...  Geo-political factors like the war in Ukraine ... Fertilizer costs ... Volatility ... A change in market price can cost us thousands ... It's pretty scary, really.  We've spent all the money, we've got a reasonable crop here ... when we decide what to grow, we're gambling on what each crop will be worth come harvest time ..." 

Oo-err, missus, sounds really scary.  Volatility!  War in Ukraine!  Changes in global market price!!   You'd never guess that this has been the farmers' oldest problem for millennia - and, equally, has been solved for a very long time indeed.  

For those unfamiliar with the basic principles of hedging and financial derivatives: whenever a player takes a fixed-price forward position (here a farmer, investing in seed etc at fixed cost today, but effectively playing in the forward cereal market against delivery at harvest time) in a market where prices are liable to change, that player is exposed to potential adverse movements in price.  They are of course simultaneously exposed to the upside of potentially favourable price movements; but it's the downside risk that mostly concerns us (and, seemingly, Henson) here.

Is this exposure necessary?  Not for a very long time, since the ages-old development of forward markets:  why doesn't Henson avail himself of the forward market for the cereal he's investing in?  In other words, forward-sell all (or at least a large part of) his crop at the very same time he buys his seed?  Putting matters simply (we'll note some complexities later), one generally assumes that at the time of his making the fateful decision, there must be a positive margin available to him, i.e. between his fixed costs and the forward value of the crop - else why is he even considering it?  So, courtesy of forward prices, that margin is there to be locked in, eliminating first-order Price Risk.  Now, his risk profile is mostly that of the operational risks associated with weather, blight etc - the very stuff of farming, even for a player bewildered by the financial markets.

Does Hansen not know this?   I think he must.  So why does he bleat in such a dumb fashion?  More to the point (since farmers always whinge & we all know this), why don't BBC editors intervene, & make him say something more comprehensive & honest?

Later in the week we'll take a look at some of the very real practical complexities around our simplified account above - which might have made for a genuinely interesting & informative Countryside piece.  But for now, let's notice how Hansen and his mate signed off.

"as a fairly large farm, we can afford to take some gambles ... "

And there we have it - the pair are gamblers! - which is the proper term for anyone with a forward-price exposure and the ability to hedge, but who doesn't in fact avail himself of the hedge.  Next time: how some of these issues play out in the Real World.

ND

Cultural Stereotyping: Shock, Horror!

So, hot-foot from the metropolitan political hurlyburly, the sophisticated Drew family block vote of two is in Devon, in a fabulous waterfront fish'n'chips establishment.  Well, the food and drink is fabulous - but on the telly in the corner (sadly) is the BBC's Commonwealth Games coverage, blaring out "It-a-Brom-Ting, It-a-Brom-Ting".

Says the proprietor:  I'll tell you what's a Brum thing.  The Brummies all order a jug of gravy to go with their fish!  Yes!  They all do! 

Cultural stereotyping?  Oh, they have absolutely no inhibitions down here!

ND

"Energy is Big and Sexy" - BBC. Well, Yes

As you will imagine I have been idly watching the Beeb's Powering Britain, not in the hope of learning much, but rather to see how prime time TV covers - or dodges - some meaty issues.  Needless to say, for the most part the four episodes have been lavishly-photographed tourist guides, our breathless reporter always being gushingly overwhelmed by the scale and sheer sexiness of the whole thing.  Big Engineering always has that effect - if you steer people away from dirty, leaky old kit and fix their gaze firmly on the shiny new stuff.  Helicopter rides are generally quite fun, too (on a day when the weather's ok ...)

All in all, a massive PR opportunity for the firms involved (SSE, Drax, Spirit and EDF) which naturally they've seized with both hands and immense gratitude.  Can't have done the whole industry any harm, either - give folks an idea of the scale of what it all means; romance of engineering & commerce, etc.  Indeed, if a similar series had been run on commercial TV or a newspaper, you'd assume it was paid-for advertorial stuff.   

And not a Green in sight!   Dear me no - we're all quite green enough without letting Swampy or Greta come on with their whingeing and wimpering.

Controversy has barely been acknowledged: just the once, really, over Drax.  The SSE episode was about the world's biggest offshore windfarm and its onshore receiving station - including the merest hint (which probably passed unnoticed to most) about what's fast becoming a cause célèbre, the culpably chaotic business of digging big cable corridors, generally through highly sensitive coastal geography & habitats etc, with no obvious sign of planning / coordination on the part of National Grid.  Otherwise, it was just 100% jaw-dropping Big Kit on display in breathtaking marine vistas.  And no mention of what happens when there's no wind? ...

The Spirit episode featured their huge Morecambe Bay gasfield and its onshore gas processing plant.  (If you haven't heard of Spirit, it is a Centrica spin-off, one of the many new 'end-of-field-life' specialist O&G producers who manage upstream assets when development risk is long since past and the original developers - in this case British Gas - have better uses for their capital.)   Big offshore installations are pretty mind-blowing, so no shortage of gawping to be done here.  What controversy might have been expected?  Well, there are some people for whom even mention of fossil fuels in any other sentence than "we are closing this thing down as fast as humanly possible, ideally tomorrow morning".  But the Spirit PR team had put clever words into the mouth of the plant manager, who simply said that we'll need gas for a few more years on the path to Net Zero Carbon (tacitly answering part of the question left by the SSE programme), and that they were there to do their bit.  The Beeb felt no need to qualify that with any sort of counterpoint voice-over.  

The last episode was on EDF's nukes at Heysham, and the nuclear fuel plant at Springfields down the road.  They didn't explicitly use it to answer another part of the unasked SSE / wind question.  Obviously, they could have filled the entire slot with nothing but controversy (see, for example, the Public Accounts Committee report published today); so they ran with more-or-less none whatsoever.  Fair play, it had to be that way, really: though arguably they might have mentioned the cracks in one of the boilers and some of the fuel bricks ...  So it ended up quite pedestrian to my view.  I was, however, entranced to hear engineers talking in "thousandths of an inch" (it was the same in the Drax episode) which jars a little.  Then again, I imagine they run the plant on Windows 98 or some such.

So what about Drax, then?  Yet again, they didn't use it to answer the SSE / wind question (- it actually contributes to both parts, in fact); but, yes, they really couldn't - and they didn't - fail to mention that burning trees to generate electricity is controversial.  Which it bloody is - an outright scandal, in fact, compounded by the risible official "green" carbon-accounting convention which allows Drax to ignore CO2 emitted at the point of combustion, and hence to qualify for 9-figure sums in annual "renewables" subsidies despite emitting more CO2 than in the days when it was burning coal (and vastly more than if the same electricity was generated instead by gas) with the distant prospect of maybe that CO2 being maybe absorbed by replacement trees (maybe) 50-100 years hence (maybe).

They've got me started now.

Anyhow, all four episodes are labelled "Series 1" so perhaps they'll follow up with more later.  There's no shortage of energy companies with big PR budgets, interesting stories to tell, and photogenic kit to display.  One thing we may predict: there will be a lot of Greens who are furious at the easy, glossy ride the Beeb has given the industry in these programmes, and will be pressing to get more *balance* into any subsequent series.

ND

BBC: the Bad and the Very, Very Good

This isn't a wokewatch blog, there isn't time in the day;   though sometimes we can't contain ourselves.  The importance of free speech and truth-telling is central to the type of liberal capitalism we espouse.

And the Beeb is so very often at fault: so when it lives gloriously up to its Charter the trumpets should be sounded.  But before that, a reminder of its venality.  They are re-running David Olusoga's A House Through Time, and I must have missed the relevant episode of the Liverpool House, or I'd have mentioned it then.  Olusoga is of course a revisionist historian with an impressively "rational" demeanour - oh, he knows so many facts - and needless to say the Bristol House was that of a slave-trader etc etc ad nauseam.  The Liverpool example was near the docks, and in the episode that covers WW2 he delivers the following line.  Thanks to the untiring efforts of the two heroic dock workers he's lauding,

"the Port of Liverpool remained operational throughout the War, ensuring that Britain was fed, equipped and armed"

Except, of course, when it wasn't.  The Liverpool dockers have always been notorious for their propensity for striking, and WW2 was no exception.  As well as a load of small strikes in the period before Hitler invaded Russia (i.e. when Russia was Hitler's ally and the Communist Party opposed the war), there was what even trade unionists accept was a "major" dock strike in Liverpool in 1943; and a big seaman's strike there in 1942.  Londoners of my father's generation would bitterly recall the Liverpool dockers being out at the height of the Blitz.  Time to revise the revisionist account, then.

BUT  (*fanfare*)  the Beeb has redeemed itself, and all is not lost.  For they have seen fit to publish a no-holds-barred account of how the Atlantic slave trade had its origins in a pre-existing, and utterly unrepentent native African slave trade.  We all knew this, but I wasn't expecting to see it aired quite so fully as it is here. 

'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves' - Nigerian journalist and novelist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes that one of her ancestors sold slaves, but argues that he should not be judged by today's standards or values.  

My great-grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, was what I prefer to call a businessman, from the Igbo ethnic group of south-eastern Nigeria. He dealt in a number of goods, including tobacco and palm produce. He also sold human beings. "He had agents who captured slaves from different places and brought them to him," my father told me...

It further contains some highly relevant cultural commentary by this bravely outspoken lady.

The successful sale of adults was considered an exploit for which a man was hailed by praise singers, akin to exploits in wrestling, war, or in hunting animals like the lion. Slavery was so ingrained in the culture that a number of popular Igbo proverbs make reference to it: [e.g.] Anyone who has no slave is his own slave ... The concept of "all men are created equal" was completely alien to traditional religion and law in his society. It would be unfair to judge a 19th Century man by 21st Century principles.  Assessing the people of Africa's past by today's standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains  [my emphasis].

Can this article survive for long in the Beeb's website before being taken down?  I've recommended elsewhere that we all cache it as a gem of accurate, thorough historical reporting and intelligent commentary.  It deserves to go viral - and if it did, the resultant woke-wailing would be wondrous to behold.

ND

Down with the BBC

There is a huge wave of media comment at the moment, mostly led by BBC journalists and workers (not that they admit this on Twitter etc), trying to defend the BBC license fee.

The new Government is they fear looking at the viability of the BBC and correcting the wrong of making it a jailing offence to not pay the annual licence fee.

As Capitalists, I have long detested the monopoly of the BBC. The government has in effect subsidies tv and radio in this country by force. A by-product has been historically a higher quality output than most countries, but at a price of forcing hundreds of people to go to jail every year.

In 2020 this can no longer be even slightly justified. Hollywood is being outcompetes by the likes of Netflix and Amazon. Quality TV is available in the market to buy at a reasonable price. The BBC gave up on live sports so we are all used to paying for that or choosing not to now.

There is no moral stance in forcing people to pay for the BBC. However once the government reduces the jail threat, there will be hundreds of thousands more non-payers and the model will collapse.

Hence the campaign now. Sadly for the BBC too the only public service elements like News have also been compromised in our new partisan era. If the Government does want to subsidise news for the general good it could auction this off to the already numerous providers in the market.

My hope though is that the end is nigh for this regressive and unnecessary tax.

BBC at it again - Hedge Fund Conspiracy nonsense

I really hate this BBC article. It is a classic bit of fake news.

BBC Fake news about conspiracy

It drives me mad when 'journalists' write this way. So the story is about the frankly ridiculous consipracy theory that somehow Boris Johnson is only doing Brexit at the bidding of Hedge Fund managers who want No Deal. This is a Labour party sponsored conspriacy, manufactured entiely by their PR department.

Rather than starting with the obvious point - that there is not one shred of evidence, anywhere,  for this baloney. The article instead spends ages saying why people might belive this were true, before, several tedious paragrapsh in, getting to the point that there is no evidence and even the tenets of the consiparcy have no merit.

Even then, it ends thus:

"The widespread acceptance of this current conspiracy theory demonstrates that this rings true for many. But, as yet, there has not been enough evidence produced that a few shadowy financiers are pulling the strings of a no-deal Brexit puppet."

So basically, it is OK to write about this becuase it sounds plausible even though there is no evidence for it. I would be hard pushed to say the article is even clear because the vast majority of it is spent re-gurgitating the Labour spin lines and only a tiny amount de-bunking at the end.

You may as well write articles about a moon made of cheese or Lizards controlling the UN. Someone remind me why I pay a licence fee to have people write badly hidden Labour Party propoganda?

People Are Starting to Think Straight

Well that's comprehensively seen off my weekend worry that Boris might catch his predecessor's Airport Fever.  Good instinct or good advice; it doesn't matter.  Just stay away from those euro-capitals.

Yes, people are starting to take the whole enterprise seriously.  Not Polly Toynbee, of course: "Boris Johnson’s crew will repel voters – there’s no need to fear him".  But elsewhere in the Graun: "Labour risks total wipeout if it fails to take Boris Johnson seriously".

The Irish are worried, too - and well might they be.  Keeping Varadkar waiting for a call was cheeky but good tactics; and the pained hand-wringing isn't slow to follow, as the Graun relates:

An Irish government spokesman said Varadkar had also invited Johnson to Dublin for further talks on Brexit. [I'll bet he did - see Airport Fever above] “The taoiseach restated the need for both governments to be fully committed to the Good Friday agreement" ... the spokesman said. “He recalled that the agreement requires the sovereign government to exercise power with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in full respect for their rights, equality, parity of esteem and just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.” [Presumably a quotation from the preamble.  Ooh, that's telling him!]  A No 10 spokesman said both leaders committed themselves to maintaining a warm and deep relationship between Ireland and the UK... Johnson had been accused of snubbing his Irish counterpart by leaving it so long to speak to him ...

Faced with all this new reality, others too are inevitably starting to strategise.  Back to the Irish again: here's a sign of someone getting their brains into gear:

Brexit: mess with Good Friday and we’ll block UK trade deal, US politicians warn. Hostile Congress could hold up trade deal

A decent Remainer attempt to open up a new front: and a bit more imaginative than dropping the IRA into the conversation.  And I suggest there's another scare we shall be hearing a great deal more about, too, as faithfully disseminated by the Beeb:

No-deal Brexit 'would cause civil unrest' in rural Wales

Yes, the threat of civil unrest on a much larger scale than Welsh sheep-farmers will doubtless be bruited about in the coming weeks:  and can a General Strike be far behind?  Or pupils staying away from school, spearheaded by the saintly Greta?  I have a suspicion Stormzy will be musing over the possibilities, too.  And Miller.  And Soros.

If you want an entertaining read from someone who clearly does a lot of thinking, follow Montanatorice, a CiF commenter.  He or she writes quite a lot, and repeats stuff over several comments, but the one you are looking for is what appeared BTL under the "Take Boris Seriously" article linked to above.  I think this link should take you straight in (it takes a second or two to resolve to the comment).  It's even been given the accolade of a 'Guardian Pick'; and a Golden Cleric award can't be far behind.

ND

Surprised in Salzburg

You'd have thought that UK politico-pundits were already skeptical enough about Chequers - not to say dismissive in some quarters - before yesterday.  But Salzburg seems to have taken them by surprise.

In the 6 O'Clock news, the Beeb were going, hmmm, that didn't go very well, did it?   By 10, they were pronouncing it a complete disaster, dead on arrival.  Though some would perhaps attribute this to a malign, purely internal pressure-cooker effect amongst people taking a while to find their nerve to stick in the knife, well, personally I'd do them the credit of assuming they'd been doing more than just jerking themselves off in the the four-hours between; and that their step-up in pronouncement was a result of hearing from more participants, and careful editorial deliberation.

It's shaken the Grauniad just as much, but with a different outcome:  an attempt to be calm and, by their own lights, sober, rational, and statesmanlike:

The danger for Europe’s leaders and those in London is that the break-up could become so much more severe than was desired by either the EU or the UK. Each must be careful not to misread the other’s intentions. Both sides must reflect on what sort of relationship they want and how they could achieve it. Let us hope that in the month ahead Downing Street and Brussels show the sort of wisdom required to ameliorate the error of Brexit without recourse to the bitter rancour that we had all thought the continent of Europe had left behind.

Why so shocked?  Well, there's many a pundit who has no practical conception of how negotiations actually work.  (Robbins will spend all this morning telling May it's just posturing ahead of the next round of talks.)  But presumably also, it wasn't just May's Cabinet who bought the line that the Chequers package had been cleared in advance by Merkel.  Perhaps May thought so herself - everything seemed to point to that.  Perhaps it was even true! - and that Merkel has been undercut, or didn't put enough effort in, or didn't read it properly. 

So - Party Conference up soon, and May looking as testy as she ever does; although she was at her 'reliable Head Girl' best last night for the cameras, under severe provocation.  Against all precedent, might she even get so pissed off (even irrationally so), she finds a bit of backbone?  One can but hope.

ND

No, Prime Minister

Dear BBc.
I hope you enjoy this idea. A pilot pitch to your current fad of remaking favourite old TV sitcoms, such as Open All Hours. Are You Being Served and Porridge. And giving them an unnecessary and transitional modern twist. With the same contemporary, Doctor Who style trend, of gender bending the main characters to give a fresh, if pointless and usually fatal spin, to the format.
Obviously, as is almost compulsory, post salary-gate, the central, dominant, character will be female.

This re-imagining for the modern era has the working title,

 NO, PRIME MINISTER.

Jane Hacker. Prime Minister

In the pilot episode, the hapless, timid, panicky, indecisive and always ineffective, JANE HACKER, Minister for Internal Home Affairs, unexpectedly, through the machinations behind the scenes of  Cabinet Secretary, Sir Olly Robbinby, becomes Prime Minister.

Jane immediately runs into difficulties. The usual Westminster fare of a divided, fractious cabinet. The hard left socialist opposition. The over-exuberant Americans. The NHS in crisis. The threats from the unions. The tricks of the Russians. Falling productivity. The Irish Troubles { This time represented by the DUP} And of course the intransigence of the EU.

 All these wonderful themes from the original classic series, can be easily reused if just given a modern twist. That is easily done with a liberal sprinkling of dialogue involving -  social media, smartphone, Quinoa, Airbnb. Foodbank. Tesla. Hashtag#Fad-whatever. And LBGTQ references. 
It may be possible to give the series a tight shooting and edit deadline. To make each episode really up to the minute, News 24, Millennial focused, with that weeks current affairs references, jammed in. As they did with another old classic Drop the Dead Donkey. 
{Also currently being re-imagined by BQP as "OMG-Facebook, you won't believe it!" -working title.}

PS; We appreciate you do like to mention Olly Murs and Danny Dyer in every single one of your programs. So we will cram them in somehow.

Await your response to this idea for a brand new, old sitcom.

William Quango
BQ Productions
C/o room 40
Westminster, Palace of,
SE11AA

A taster for one of the episodes.

NO, PRIME MINISTER

Episode III

Brexit.

Scene - Outside the PM's office - 

The outside office to the Prime Minister's office, sees a worried Principal Private Secretary,
Wooley Barnard, Theresa May's PPS. He is examining an opinion piece in the nominally supportive Daily Telegraph. It was not supportive.

The cabinet Secretary, Sir Olly Robbinby enters. He notes Wooley's glum expression, and asks,

"Another poor political poll? Barnard?"

"Erm..no Sir Olly..."

"Minister caught out like an Uber? Hiring themselves around the corporates and got stung by a Sunday Times fake Blood Diamond for export scam? No...?....Is it the Ultra Liberal-Panty-Waist-Softball, appointed to be director of Public Prosecutions that's worrying them? "

"Er..No Sir Olly..I mean, yes..it is, obviously....But no. That's not the problem."

"Then what is, Wooley? Love Island season finale didn't go the way you hoped?"

"Its this Newspaper, Sir Olly. It doesn't like the new Brexit White Paper."
 He hands over the offending column.

Sir Olly barely scanned it. He'd seen many such pieces over the last year. And many more over the last few weeks.
  "A piece from the red faced Brexit Furies of that Daily Express rag, is it? A piece of Gammon!" Sir Olly beamed at his witticism and at poor Barnard.

"This is the Telegraph, Sir Olly. A usually supportive of the Prime Minister paper. Although a Brexit one."

"Ohh..Barnard, really. The Telegraph isn't supportive of the Prime Minister or Brexit. Its owners want as much EU subsidy and free press subsidy as they can bank offshore. And they only support someone likely to hand over knighthoods and honours. You do know the Telegraph only came out for Brexit about an hour before those ghastly, awful, votes about the UK leaving were finally counted up? The readers might want out. But who cares about them? Certainly not the owners."

"But Sir Olly. It's quite a personal attack..You know how she is about them."

"A personal attack behind a Paywall, Barnard. No one will read it," soothed the Cabinet Secretary.
And do you know how many daily papers they sell these digital days? Seven would be a good day for them."
Sir Olly finally scanned the troublesome column.

"The Prime Minister has abandoned her Florence speech firmness as carelessly as a second rate assassin might discard a bottle of Novichok perfume. She has lost her Mansion House commitments as foolishly and unmistakably as a junior Thai soccer team in a cave. 
 She has capitulated. She has surrendered. She has rolled over and begged to be beaten by her European Masters. Beaten for her wickedness in attempting to even begin to suggest a bargaining with such mighty overlords. "

"Who's this? Simon the Heifer? Or Quentin's Sweats. Anyway, it's really not that bad.,"
"Read further on, Sir Olly."

Sir Olly did.

" The Prime Minister, Jane Hacker, has already taken it from the EU in every orifice. And now she wants to handle the negotiations herself! She doesn't just flop. And fold. But bends at the waist. She says she will be firm! Laughable! The only firm things in the room will be the throbbing of the 27 members and the grip she has on her own ankles. The door will close and the teabagging will begin."


"I see...Yes..That has come across rather graphicly, hasn't it? Reads like a typical Mumsnet post, doesn't it?" 

"Sir Olly?" asked Wooley, "What shall I tell the PM? And what exactly is tea bagging? She's bound to ask."

"I have no idea, Barnard. I always insist on loose leaf. I don't much care for these modern packaging methods. American ideas..Never been keen on them. Fast food and low tax societies.
.Such,..unpalatable ideas...Well..I assume it means something in much the same,  'scenes of sexual content from the start', as the rest of the piece.
What to tell the PM?.. Well she's a Vicar's daughter. So she won't know what teabagging is either. Just tell her its a reference to..well.. To tea!
 Say it refers to our national characteristic. The enjoyment of a hot beverage in times of crisis..erm..No don't say crisis..We don't want her hiding under the desk again for a week, do we.
Say, the enjoyment of a hot beverage. And SHE represents that ideal of tea. The very character of tea, is how the masses see her own character."

Sir Olly gestured, a bold finger as he expanded on his theme.

"Strong. Warm, Dependable. Necessary. The gritty handed Workman's favourite. A delightful sip. A saucer sup. ..  Fresh....Quintessentially English..The appeal of an afternoon's pleasantness. Rural England's cake shoppe refinement. The very soul of the Vicarage itself."

"That's very reassuring Sir Olly. But I don't think the paper do mean those things. They seem quite hostile. I think it means she is like a teabag. A used one..Sort of .." And Bernard slumped himself down at the shoulders.
"Sort of..Squashed out. Cold. Soft. Unpleasantly wet...Grey...Weak..Saggy..You know..a used teabag is ..well..just a bit desperate and a little bitter, isn't it?"

"Its up to you Barnard. Tell her my version, or tell her yours. But if you don't want her flapping like a wet hen all week, I'd tell her my version. Now, is the leader of the nation available to see me?"

"Oh, erm..no, Sir Olly."

Sir Olly looked at Barnard, annoyed. It wasn't supposed to be a request. He was Olly Robbinby. It was a statement of intent.

"She is still away. On her tour of the Northern, remain voting, marginals."

Sir Olly sighed as he remembered. "Oh yes. Of course. 'The Great Progress.' "

"Well you did say you wanted her out of the way. For the summer."

"Indeed I did Barnard. And a wonderful idea it was of yours. A tour of her people."

"It was actually your idea, Sir Olly."

"... To explain her Chequers Plan."

"It was actually your plan, Sir Olly."

"Do stop interrupting Barnard. ..Its was a good idea to have her away when important decisions need to be taken. Important that I take those decis...Erm...I mean important that the nation takes those decisions, that are required. Without outside interference."

"Sir Olly, you aren't suggesting Mrs Hacker is 'outside interference,' are you ? She is the PM, isn't she?"

"Indeed she is, Barnard. But she is currently outside and I'm sure she is interfering in something. A custard cream production line in a biscuit factory, somewhere in the grey and drizzly depths of the Winterfell that is The North. So my point stands."

 “But Sir Olly, ...if she’s not the one here, now, making decisions. Or more realistically, avoiding making decisions, won’t she duck any blame for any “unpopular” action and reneging on firm, repeated, promises already made ?”

“Barnard!" snapped Sir Robbinby crossly. " Firstly..there can be NO unpopular decisions when it comes to reversing the appalling Brexit disaster!
And secondly, do you really think I’m so amateur I'd allow myself to be caught signing or instigating an actual commitment? 
And do you really think I could be half-witted enough to end up taking the blame for such a thing? I’m not David Davis, you know!”

“Sorry, Sir Olly.”

"Right..Now if you don't mind I shall use the Prime Minister's office for the rest of the day. I find it very helpful if instructions originate from within."

And with that, the Cabinet Secretary went inside and sat himself in his usual government recess place. At the desk of the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Norther Ireland.




TBC

Gary Lineker!

Well, well, well - who'd have guessed, eh?

Nice to see the Beeb chewing up its own.  Wonder who else has done *nothing illegal* ...

ND

Halloween Horror - BBC Brexit coverage

"I voted remain, can you tell?" Kamal Ahmed, BBC Economics Editor

OK, so this is a tiny bit samey but wow, has the BBC plumbed some depths today to find its bad news Brexit coverage.


Unsurprisingly it comes for a remoaning journalist by the name of Kamal Ahmed, so bad that he is comes nowhere close to replacing Robert Pestion.


Anyway, read the article, it starts with a bold headline, rows back, throws in some surreal numbers quoted by a man down the pub and then comes round to the idea that it was right all along.


Then is undone by the facts at the end which quote hundreds of job changes, not thousands or tens of thousands.


On the days when Brexit and talking about it just get me down, this stuff reminds me how hard the establishment will fight and lie. I feel for Donald Trump on this basis too, the whole US Government and Media really is out to get him and it must be very trying indeed!

Is BBC online Pravda ? Or the Sunday Times Style Magazine

My real issue with the very extensive and incredibly wide ranging BBC Online, Your BBC website of news and sport, is that it isn't very good at informing.
Its pretty good at reporting the news. But just reporting it. Not explaining it. Or contextualizing it. Or investigating it.

Sure, its a supremely slick web page. The latest news is analytically promoted to appear as the top item in search browsers. There is news. Weather. Sport. Politics. Human Interest. Charity. A bit of Religion. A lot of Royal.
World news. Arts. Business. Science. Popular culture. Newspaper headlines. Tech stories. Schools, education and children's news. 

{which is a very good service. Costly for the Beeb to produce. But kids do have a grasp of news they would not otherwise have because of Newsbeat and Newsround.}

Plenty of minority content. UK regional content picked up at great expense and available to view. 
Individual, devolved home nation news, produced  in languages people don't even speak. 
Endless BBC self promotion stories and plugs and the whole webpage, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news links together BBC television, radio and iplayer content.

But, my complaint has long been, although the BBC has the width of a lake, it has the depth of a puddle.

  That is not say BBCOnline isn't quality. A visit to CNN or Fox or Russia Today shows a much inferior content and  navigation web page.
But they don't have the licence fee cash cow. Not the £-billions that the BBC pours into its online and worldwide content. So the BBC should be the best.

The BBc is a great stater page. But it isn't a newspaper. Its not even an informed blog. Its more a colour magazine. Flip through and look at the pictures. A taster for news and issues. A news precis. A guide to whether its worth seeking out further information.

An example would be the current EU airport security checks: Holidaymakers 'face long delays'
Reading the story informs the reader about long delays. Explains that it is new passport readers adding to the time to check. Tells the tale of EU increasing regualtion at borders, to combat terrorism.
Has plenty of comment from airline chiefs and the tourist board. And delayed passengers.
And concludes at the very end that the delays seem to have vanished. So its already a non-story.
A perfect, quick and simple, modern newspaper clickbait online type story. Snips and quote cuts and a modicum of redrafting. With a banner headline and a sad picture. 
Its only lacking - 
'10 incredible things holiday makers packed in their suitcases. You won't believe number 6 !"

There is no mention of why the process takes longer. Of the fact the hugely expensive new scanning machines don't tell the passenger which way up to place the passport. So failing to work. 
No mention of perhaps the customs should have had more staff for a new process at the start of the holiday season. Or why the EU, with its no compromise ever - no way- no deals on no-borders, or freedom of movement, suddenly felt the need to strengthen border controls.

Its just a collection of statements from interested parties. And that is fine. The BBC prides itself on holding no opinions. And its why if you want to know more, you have to go elsewhere.


It reminds me of watching Tomorrow's World with my best friend's dad. He was a nuclear physicist. 

He once told us kids, sat on the floor in front of the small, fat, telly, that if you had no idea of the subject it all seemed plausible and informative. But if the Tomorrow team strayed into his field, it was clear their discussion and explanations were laughably simple.

"Its quite easy to forget they are just actors. If you don't have any knowledge of what they are talking about."

BBC Salaries explained

BBC reveal the salaries of their top talent.

To inevitable controversy.

A spokesperson for the BBc contacted C@W to explain.

 "We compete for those first class Remainers in a very competitive market.
Whilst it is true that many of the leading Remainers would work for the Remain supporting, EU loving, BBC for less than they might at the evil Murdochian SKY, it would be unfair not to give these Remoaners the sorts of sums they, and we, feel they should have.

A commercial environment can be very competitive, so I'm told. I have no idea as I work for the public sector BBC. 

But assuming that commercial rates do have an impact, you can see that the BBC needs to pay the very best to attract the best Remoaners out there.

I mean, we would love to have Jon Snow. Love too! Openly Anti-Tory. The very personification of the Guardian. But we just cannot match the significant package that he gets at C4.
You see, Channel 4 is a major source of Remainer, Anti-Brexit media people competition for the BBC. We have to try and keep as near as possible to the vast salaries they pay themselves, just to hang on to our own Europhiles. Like Gary Lineker. John Humphrys. David Dimbleby. Laura Kuenssberg. We simply have to pay them huge sums to keep them. Have too!

And our, ahem..I mean ..your top talent are left wing too. Which is wonderful. 

But as you must be aware, the rise of Corbyn has caused a shift in political allegiance.
It used to be axiomatic that all potential BBC 'talent,' in the arts. Comedy. Literature. Academia. News. Sport, and social affairs, were lefties. And they would be ardently pro-EU.

But since Corbyn, senior left wing media people cannot be assumed to be signed up European Federalists!
This obviously puts a premium on the totally committed, 'ignore the referendum', Remainers, we already have.
Graham Norton, Claudia Winkleman, Chris Evans. Fiona Bruce, Andrew Marr, and political editor Laura Kuenssberg.Huw Edwards. NickyCampbell. Its people like these we must retain.

And anyway, the EU does make a significant contribution to these elite virtue signalers salaries. So in a way, it doesn't cost the public anything at all.

Unless you want to bring up that old chestnut that EU money is somehow just taxpayer's money redistributed. With an admin fee taken out."

If you wish to receive BBC content contact  http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ and make an annual payment of £147.00.
If you do not wish to receive BBC content you must still make an annual payment of £147.00 anyway.

The BBC is Not Always Rubbish

Contentious sentiment, huh?  But, just once in a while ...

Here's an interesting BBC article on a good Capitalist topic: 'two-part pricing' - the sale of (e.g.) below-cost printers to hook you on their overpriced ink: a phenomenon that sometimes makes one grind the teeth.  Rent-seeking; they're all at it.

Anyhow this Beeb writer attributes it to Mr Gillette and his razor-blades.  (Did giving kerosene lamps to eskimos** post-date this?)  It's all a bit entry-level, but he goes on to discuss the dynamics of two-part pricing more generally:  locking the customer in via patents on the refills, or technology for the same effect - those bastard chip-readers that prevent you from using a knock-off.  (The software in my printer is yet more subversive than that: but I'm even smarter still ...).

Also discussed are the psychological factors which is where it gets really interesting, for economists as much as psychologists.  "Two-part pricing can be highly inefficient, and economists have puzzled over why consumers stand for it. The most plausible explanation is that they get confused."  Well, maybe.  But yes: teaser-rates, free trials, 'customer loyalty', inertia in general - all phenomena worth recognising.  And the really serious matter of barriers to exit / barriers to switching:  hey, I spent some time in the enterprise software business and believe me, the thought of switching out of a big, more-or-less reliable piece of enterprise s/w is enough to make most companies stay rooted to the spot in a cold sweat, long after they should have jumped ship.

Good old Beeb, eh?   (*ducks*)

ND  

 ________
** am I allowed to say that?  or should it be native Inuit-type Canadian indigenous peoples ...

And These People Have Jobs ... BBC Jobs!

Idly tuning into BBC2 yesterday I encountered of programme on the history of lighting, in which our hero recounts (inter alia) the story of sperm-oil lamps.  This involves telling us about the United Company of Spermaceti Chandlers of Nantucket (1761) which attempted to establish what he describes as "one of the first ever monopolies".

First ever ?  Pardon me while I get up off the floor and reach for my sources.

The term "monopoly" first appears in Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle describes Thales of Miletus's cornering of the market in olive presses as a monopoly (μονοπωλίαν) ... Under mercantilist economic systems, European governments with colonial interests often granted large and extremely lucrative monopolies

An enactment published by Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius was not content merely to proclaim the manufacture of purple an official monopoly but also made a monopoly of the sale of fabrics dyed with blatta, oxyblatta and hyacinthina

At the time of Edward VI the sovereign was accustomed to grant special privileges to his favourites, which constituted a practical monopoly  

Etc etc etc, through ancient Chinese salt monopolies, the East India Company ...  Sheesh.  Is there no such thing as an 'editor' at the Beeb these days?  Still, what would they be expected to know about monopolies, eh ..?

ND

Why is research so partial - EU Immigration report

If you had the time you could read the report for yourself, here it is. But the BBC, Robert Peston and the usual crew of lefty fellow-travellers are happy disseminating this fiction as the whole truth.

The soundbite being used is thus:

"the big point is that without the immigrants, our taxes or public sector borrowing would be measurably higher. Which, at a time when the government is failing to reduce the UK's unsustainable large public sector deficit at the speed it would like, seems of some relevance."
Robert Peston, BBC

Why is this so partial? Well the study is on a specific time period that ended 3 years ago for a start. In effect, it is measuring not quite the first 6 years on labour increase. Migration Watch have countered that if you use the information that is up to date, all of their conclusions change - the overall net cost if much higher and there is no net benefit.

Worse though is that EU immigrants are of course only half the of the issue. Non EU immigrants in this time period are 40% of the total. These immigrants are ignored, but their employment levels are lower and they have more dependents - so its is inevitable that they will cost more. Plus the more EU immigrants there are, the less chance other immigrants will have of getting the jobs generated by the economy.

This single fact is enough to discredit the report entirely. using only half the pool for analysis and then selecting specific time periods to fit your own narrative is very shoddy work. It's helpful anti-UKIP conclusion suits many of a certain view to jump on; but really, what is the point of such partial analysis?

Patten: Goodbye and Good Riddance

I used to have a fair regard for Chris Patten.  In the '80s, when I was quite active in politics, he seemed a very necessary antibody in the Conservative physiognomy, a brave and intelligent voice at the court of the increasingly irrational post-1987 Thatcher.  In the 90's as 'Fatty Pang', he conducted the withdrawal from Hong Kong (an operation which I know something about) in a sensible and subtle manner, playing a weak hand very cleverly with - so far as can be judged today - lasting all-round benefits.

But for a good few years now, I have become utterly sick of the man.  On a trivial (but telling) level his pompous, arch conduct of the Oxford Chancellorship, replete with smug, sophistic speeches and complacency, (and endless, shameless book-promotions) make him a very worthy successor to the equally stomach-turning Roy Jenkins.  I never really followed his career at the EC, but no doubt someone will enlighten us; and intuitively it seems unlikely he covered himself with any glory there either.

But it is his conduct at the head of the BBC that makes this more than a matter of personal taste.  How someone of any judgement or rectitude whatever can have allowed that bunch of wasters to award themselves hundreds of meaningless jobs at surreal salaries, whilst outrageously pursuing an illegitimate, self-appointed, partisan political mission, is beyond me.  

Manifestly, as more and more evidence piles up of misconduct of many kinds at the BBC, the man at the top should have been busying himself with a purposeful cleansing of the grotesquely luxurious stables.    But none of that: he has instead taken every opportunity to defend these baleful and monstrous developments in his repulsive, arrogant, bullying manner across the committee table, not even scrupling to issue softly-spoken threats to his inquisitors.

I wish heart by-pass surgery on no-one.  At the same time, I could wish he hadn't taken the triple judgement by-pass a decade or more ago.

ND

Le Pen Demands Respect from Beeb & Quite Right Too

I am deeply suspicious of poujadists of any nationality: it's all too easy, and often unsavoury.  Politics is about power, not protest.  What vocal-minority party ever manoeuvred its way into a sustainable national-policy-dictating position ?

Marine le Pen, however, is still an elected politician which is more than can be said for Laura Kuenssberg, Le Pen's interrogator on Newsnight yesterday.   Kuenssberg duly essayed the ill-mannered, interruptive, dumb-down style of Snow and Wark, under which legions of courteous American interviewees have suffered with restrained dignity.  Le Pen was having none of it and replied calmly but firmly:  Madame, you seem more interested in your own questions than in my replies.

Good for her: would that more politicos could find ways to put these self-important gits in their place.  It is said that Ian Katz, the recently-installed editor of Newnight, bust the budget to get Kuenssberg as a replacement for Michael Crick.  It's not a bargain.

Crick may be quirky but he actually breaks exclusive stories by actually doing *gasp* actual research.  When Crick is rude, it's because he has caught someone with their pants around their ankles.  No-one's heart will ever sink at the words "Laura Kuenssberg is in reception for you ..."

ND