Reception to Florence

The kindness of Strangers' {bar}

"Hello Prime Minister. Thank you for seeing me. I realise you are very busy. What with the press and the European Union and such. I've just been with the 1922...

They are all fine. Thank you for asking. ...How was the speech received there? Well, it was looked upon very positively....by some...I'm sure...Though they may not have expressed their admiration for walking the tricky Brexit tightrope in so many words.

No, not applause...nothing like that..You know how they are..Very reserved..Unlikely to show  ..erm...emotional expression.

Well...I'm sure you did as you thought best. And I'm sure your support from everyone is just where it was...the day after the election.

Oh I wouldn't say hostile, Prime Minister. That would indicate an undercurrent of anger. There was none of that! Heavens, no. Maybe the odd person asked if you were perhaps standing in front of a white screen or a white flag?
 
 There were a few voices murmuring about your own, actual delivery of the speech
..In what way?..

Well...I did hear mention of it being delivered a bit in the style of Hirohito.  "Brexit has developed not necessarily to Britain's advantage." That sort of thing..

And one or two suggested perhaps a better venue might have been a 19th century railway wagon.

In the Compiègne forest.

Er...Quite correct PM, that is a military reference...as were the ones about Yorktown and Cornwallis. 2nd Afghan war. Suez '56.
 ...I did hear an amusing one about the Hundred years war..
Someone said that's what you have signed up to..With your 'period of implementation' unconditional offer.

Yes that is another historical reference. A very long conflict. Us and the French. 

Undeniably, they are a bit keen on their history. The 1922. Its kind of in the title. 
You studied geography, if memory serves? A fascinating subject I'm sure..Actually there was a geographic-historic point I overheard. I can't quite remember it all... but Senlac Hill got a mention.  And there were some more modern comparisons. Roy Hodgson. England vs Iceland, for one.

Oh, now Prime Minister. Don't look so downhearted. I'm sure the Europeans will recognise the difficulties you face. The complexities involved. And the chaps weren't out for blood. Really, they were very understanding. And they took it far better than the other day when you said you were going to stay on for ten more years.

They just wished there had been a bit more Churchill at Dunkirk and a bit less Percival at Singapore to it. You know? 
Erm..No PM. I meant nothing to do with temperate climates. Though it was a bit cool..the speech, I mean..Not the ...look...let's just leave the history-geography to one side, shall we?

Now the 1922, asked me to pop along to see you. Just to float an idea. 

As you know, conference is 1st October. And we all want a really rousing one after the erm..the...erm..abatement of our majority in June. 

So, we were considering ways of ensuring you receive a really, really spectacular standing ovation. Something you could have forever as a personal achievement. Something you could say to really make the conference come together. To reunite the party. Something to please both Brexiteers and Remainers.
That would be something to be proud of, wouldn't it, Prime Minister?

Well..I'll tell you..You see we thought, if the EU negotiators respond as we expect them to. To that ...erm..that ...interesting...speech you gave today, then we should have a response of our own.

Of course the choice would be up to you. The party is in no way favouring one option over another.
You could say "ill Health." or, "Spending More Time With Phillip." 

Just so long as you are gon...erm....you announce the decision during the conference. The handover details will all be worked out by then. Stay on as a caretaker until, say, November?  Give us time to sort the vacancy. Quash the civil war.

Pardon, Prime Minister?..  Alas, it was so Prime Minister. Unanimous. 

And you know, this really would be for the best. For you. For the party. For the country!

 Very difficult times. And who really needs all that abuse? All that criticism? You don't really want to read what George Osborne says about you every day, do you? Who needs it? Its a rotten job. 

You try your very best, and what thanks do you get? None at all. 
Just pages and pages in the Guardian about how you don't care about anyone, and the BBC complaining about your trouser suits.

And of course, once you are free from the chains of office, you can make a fortune on the diner circuit. Even old Brown is making as much Wayne Rooney for his self-promoting nonsense. 

And you'd be a Grandee.

Held in utmost regard. Instead of, as now, someone who is thought of as just a ...erm..I mean..higher regard! Held in higher regard as a Grandee. 

Just think, Theresa. No more campaigning. No more debates. No interviews. No fractious cabinet meetings. No more DUP demands. No more EU demands. No more worrying about tomorrows headlines. Not having to mix with people. And, thankfully for us all, no more speeches.

Far, far better to go now. At YOUR choosing. To a tumultuous applause. Not just from the party. But from the nation!
 .......
...
Much better to leave right now. With dignity. With grandeur and decorum.
..
..
..

Rather than with the knives in the back and front that must surely follow..... ...If you choose the other path.
..
..
Its for the best, Mrs May. It really is.
..
..


No..
No need for you to do that.

 I have an approved resignation speech from the committee, right here in my jacket pocket. Its even got a suitable choice of outfit and how long the applause will last. Its scripted beside each paragraph. 

As I said. Much better this way. Much..much better. 

 




















For everyone.

Deep in the Forest, Something Stirs

The Grauniad lets rip with an 'exclusive' today

UK banks to check 70m bank accounts in search for illegal immigrants: from January banks will be enrolled in Theresa May’s plans ... part of Immigration Act 2016 measures to create a hostile environment for illegal migrants.

And why not? - you may say.  What did you imagine?  Joined-up government at last!  Yes, it sounds like more an issue for Graun readers to worry about than C@W: and it will most probably fall on deaf ears, like all these flash-in-the-pan exclusives.

However, it jogged a recent memory of something also very much data-trawl related.  I recently learned that Ofgem plans a major exercise in "data-matching" to assist with establishing the eligibilty of people for various schemes related to fuel poverty and energy efficiency measures, involving Ofgem getting automated access to everyone's tax and benefits information.  This is all possible, apparently, under the Digital Economy Act 2017 - which was rushed through in April of this year just before Parliament dissolved for the Election.   "... to make provision about data-sharing ... and for connected purposes".

You may well be straight back into Why Not? / What Did You Imagine? / Joined-up Government mode again.  Call me naive if you wish.  But I don't think you need to be an outright libertarian to wonder what's going on here.  "A number of expert witnesses to the Digital Economy Bill Committee expressed concerns about the bill", says wiki - them, plus the usual suspects: the 'Open Rights Group', 'Big Brother Watch' et al.  

The fact that they're the perennial awkward squad doesn't always mean they are wrong.  With the two stories above in mind, someone who has a bit of spare time might want to have a look at the detail of that Act again with a sceptical eye.  We know local authorities use anti-terror legislation to hunt down people suspected of mis-using wheelie-bins etc etc.  Do any of us trust Mrs May's instincts?  

Or Mr McDonnell's?

ND

Logical failures when discussing the weather

Watching the terrible Hurricane season in the Caribbean has not been a lot of fun. Lovely island cities and cultures face ruin and the support is both hard to send and it needs to be plentiful. I wrote a piece last week showing how heartless some are and I read this week too that apparently these countries are too rich for aid.


What exactly is the logic in that?


I earn money and become rich, I buy a house, I invest all my money in it, the house is destroyed and I have no insurance. My money was the house, ergo I am no longer rich.


The logic of saying you are too rich to help clearly can't apply when a country is destroyed. Has no one recalled the Marshall Plan or the Berlin airlift? Bureaucracies are stupid, another reason to have less involvement with grandiose international institutions.


Then, following on from yesterday's post, I have spoken to quite a few people keen to opine that the Hurricane season this year is worse due to climate change. That as maybe, however their evidence is that this is a once-in-a-hundred-year event. Which, by definition means that it happened around a hundred years ago, before climate change. Where is the logic in their arguments? It would only make sense if this was the worst weather event ever or if it was now more frequent that in the past - that would be logic (and, neither of those statements it true as yet).


Who else has good current examples?

Monbiot Tells Truth Again Shock

I have always regarded the Moonbat with benevolent tolerance.  He's as mad as a cut snake and his knee-jerk reactions are all wrong but - and it's a Big But - he is an honest empiricist at heart, and when he stubs his toe on the Truth, with much wailing, gnashing of teeth, sack-cloth and ashes, he acknowledges it.  

Nice to see him catch up on yet another Fact of Life, which is that Germany is no sort of paragon when it comes to 'green' policies / sustainability etc etc.  The Energiewende is a nonsense, of course (how did it take you so long, George?) and Germany's CO2 emissions have been gently rising - in marked contrast to those wicked neoliberal despotisms, the US and the UK.  But, yes, Germany has faithfully been following the usual policy of GDP trumps GHG - albeit at the same time as pandering expensively to the greens.

And so George has summoned up his courage and written about it (in the Graun - check out some of the BTL comments).  He's personalised it, of course, holding Merkel to blame for the whole thing.  

The truly personal aspect is George's own private odyssey, bouncing from pillar to post as he wishes the world were other than it truly is.  This latest piece of breast-beating is just one in a long series: (a treasured memory is the one he wrote when, trying to live a self-sufficient eco-life in Wales, his vegetable crop failed and he suddenly realised we do actually need to do things on an industrial scale).  Poor, disillusioned George.

But, hey, he's an honest man; and there is more rejoicing in Heaven ...

ND

The strange world of Brexit continues to evolve.

Even after 14 months now, the political world of Brexit I find a very odd place.


Here in the UK we have a Cabinet busy arguing over what type of Brexit they want. On the other side of the channel, there is an agreed position that either Britain pay £100-odd billion and retain open borders (via Ireland) and indeed EU citizenship for everyone or else it is a hard Brexit.


Given the European demands, hard Brexit it is. No one in the country, bar the noisiest remainers, really wants to engage in the EU terms offered.


And yet the papers are full of cabinet splits and tittle-tattle, when really preparing for a WTO world and avoiding various cliff-edge issues like flight paths is really what the focus should be on.


Indeed, this would have been the best way to send a message to the EU that it needed to bargain. Instead we have the EU merrily laughing at the UK as the politicians and media lay into one another day after day. Michel Barnier must feel like Lewis Hamilton did on Sunday after all his rivals crashed into one another and out of the race after 30 seconds.


Nonetheless Teresa May is going to have her speech on Friday, no one yet knows the full content, but it appears to be another attempt to try and find away around the EU red lines, which the EU have shown absolutely zero sign of wanting to change.


Still, popcorn viewing, of sorts.

Weekend Tale: the Moscow Mentality

BLT under CU's Iphone post, one of our anon's asked yesterday:  anyone know what kit the average Russian oligarch or Kremlin apparatchik has on their desks?

It's been quite a few years, but - History Corner here - when I was in Moscow I had a lot of Gazprom contacts.  Their offices were all identical, clearly kitted out on a hierarchical basis, and the senior ones all had the following inventory:

• two desk telephones ...
• ... one of them red!  A hot-line to the boss (I'm not kidding)
• a Dell PC
• an HP desk-top printer 
• a Sony all-in-one TV + VHS (but I never caught anyone watching TV or vid)
• a full-sized, admin-department-grade Xerox 

The whole package was quite clearly What They Thought Every Modern [western] Biznizman Has.

The red telephone was good for a smile: but it was the big Xerox that made me laugh.  Did they really think any westerner would be seen dead with the admin assistant's drudgery-box in his smart office?  Even David Brent left the photocopier in the hallway.

There was another amusing office phenomenon.  Gazprom was always in dread of being split up into multiple companies.   This made a lot of sense: the West is always railing at how big and awful a monopoly it is; and it is indeed so vast, there are loads of potentially modular (and quite marketable) companies you could break it down into, just as British Gas was de-merged into Transco / BG plc / Centrica etc etc.  

Gazprom's Cunning Plan for forestalling this was an organisation chart so complex, with lateral two-headed arrows and dotted-line reporting relationships all over the place, that no-one could point to a stand-alone chunk on the chart and say, well for starters you can obviously break out that division and sell it. 

However, I needed to understand how the empire really worked.  So I obtained an internal phone directory**, and guess what?  The extension numbers were organised in a perfectly logical, regular, hierarchical structure, from which the true set-up was readily inferred.  Easy when you know how.

ND 
_________________
** my Russian staff were really good at getting stuff like that.  Someow, they also got me an office pass for Gazprom HQ ... useful for engineering meetings etc but from their point of view it was so I could go into the Gazprom food hall and buy fresh rolls.  The Moscow city bakery only baked twice a week, but Big G baked daily!

Iphone X

This is jumping the shark, right?


I looked at a few reviews etc and this near £1,000 does almost exactly what every other iphone does, with a wider screen and the same software. Even the whole facial recognition thing is not really new or innovative.


Why would anyone want such a thing, excepting those for whom money is unlimited and showing off is the be all and end all.


More importantly, is this the end of Apple as the dominant consumer electronics company?


I recall Nokia, kings of all they surveyed, near 50% global market share. They really knew how to make phones, but when it came to smart phones, it was over.


With Apple, now that smart phones are ubiquitous, perhaps they are topping out on their competitive advantage. This is not to say they will follow the same path downwards, but perhaps this Iphone X launch is the top of the market signal from them?

Readers' Letters

"Andrew" writes ...

Dear CU, I find myself in a dark place. As one of the few sort of remainers left I saw much that was good in the EU project. Though it had many faults, as a whole it could be thought of as a good thing in the round - a bit like a friendly, but faintly smelly dog. Now Mr Blair has spoilt it for me. As a general rule, from about the year 2000 just about everything he says can be taken as a not quite true, and any cause he supports can be taken as working against the interest of the 'man on the bus' in some small way. One good example of this is his sterling middle east peace envoy efforts that have run in close parallel to the rise of ISIL. Now it seems that he is in favour or the EU and thinks the UK is in trouble - especially the city. This means the EU is in a bad situation and the UK is not in trouble. Now it seems TB is buying UK property, which means means London is in trouble - especially if he intends to live there. It is difficult to keep a track of the many layers of his deceit, this is what John Le Carre is useful for and indeed it may soon come out that he is actually hunting the maltese falcon. Anyway, I am experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance as the EU cannot be both good and bad at the same time (or can it). What do I do? 6:59 pm

Dear Andrew, 
Unfortunately, lots of things in life start out seeming good, but eventually reveal an unpalatable side, or take a turn for the worse. Regrettably this means we have to review our allegiances, and sometimes change them. It's a question of balance. A Blairometer is generally quite a reliable device (I nearly wrote "trustworthy", but that isn't the right word!) and is probably giving an accurate reading. 

Cognitive dissonance is always unsettling. Some people swear by the tried and trusted technique of closing their eyes, placing an index-finger in either ear, and singing LahLahLah! very loudly. Others migrate to websites populated only by those who agree with what they'd like to believe.  (For students in many universities there are "Safe Spaces" which perform a similar role.)  In these places they will find a cozy world of mutual delusion, and people who devise really creative fallacious arguments in support of illogical positions. 

In this case you could try a course of "Owen Jones", a remedy that has soothed many people who, for example, become anxious when someone tells them that nice Mr Corbyn is a life-long Brexiteer who unrepentantly supports vile causes across the globe, and that '2+2' is not the same as '5'. Do write again and tell us how you are getting on.

ND

 

Bye By Bell Pottinger

How did it take a whole week to figure out administration of the UK business was the only answer?

London still top financial market #despitebrexit

In not very surprising news, the authoritative survey on financial markets that is out today shows only a slight fall in London in its rating as a Financial Services hub. There is a bigger fall for New York which comes second, only distant Frankfurt gets a better rating.


Really, whatever puffery appears in the press, this is not that surprising. The City is made up mainly of FX Brokers, for whom Brexit means nothing except profits due to volatile markets; insurance, which is a global business not really affected by Brexit - the US hurricanes are a much bigger worry this year; legal and accounting services - for whom Brexit is a payday in terms of advisory work...and then maybe Banking/Mergers and Acquisitions/IPO's.


The bit everyone gets excited about is the least important bit, just because it is understandable and full of alpha-male noisy vessels it gets the most press. The latter piece is also most affected by technology change and so Brexit, as discussed previously, provides a great fig leaf to cover for inevitable salary cuts, redundancies and moving to cheaper jurisdictions.


Brexit I feel though is having an effect, business seems to be slowing as the heat in the political argument grows - and boy is this growing. The main news channels and media are loving the Remainer moaning and indeed, given the believe it themselves, are keen to keep promoting this line. This aspect is definitely making overseas investors nervous and FX market makers are following trend and marking down the pound.


On balance, this is no bad thing as the economy in the UK is badly over-heated as it contains some very large asset bubbles, with no monetary or fiscal tools in place to try and limit these - as such a slow down in activity and consumer spending will at least act as a brake on pumping more air into the bubble. Certainly, weakness in the pound is useful for slowly re-kindling exports and reducing external investment further in favour of increasing inbound investment, even though it makes holidays less fun than they were for many.

Weekend Roundup - All the news we didn't print

Weekend Roundup

A few items that we didn't have the time, wish or will to comment on last week.

Jeremy Corbyn and his Backers managed to persuade the media that an unofficial, unrecognised strike at a McDonald's, that has the union's coal and ink stained fingers all over it, was a clear sign that broken Britain has abandoned capitalism. Or something..

The Great Oz went on to demand a £10 an hour minimum wage for  these essential workers in a key hospitality industry. 

Somehow or other the High Sparrow must have missed this hideous, unwelcome and unwanted intrusion onto the supermarkets and high streets. 

Primarily caused by the rising cost of wages at a time when most other fixed costs for the industry have been falling for a decade the self serve sucker has become a thing. I expect some bright university kid to be doing the fairly easy maths to discover how many jobs have been lost in the UK since these checkouts appeared and writing a mechanisation-unemployment paper on the results.

The most infuriating thing about these self-shaft machines is that we, who are now doing the work for the multiples, don't get any discount for using them. Not even a 5p free bag. 
{unless you press the button that says 'I have my own bag' and then take them anyway. The machine doesn't know. Its a machine.}

Where is my T.U.C representative? A fair checkout's pay for a fair self pack.

In almost the same breath that the unofficial Prime Minister was getting angry about low skilled workers receiving low pay, he did a U-turn on EU membership and decided open borders with the free, unlimited, unrestricted, unchecked movement of unskilled labour is the best way to achieve that higher wage aim.

 Is there any attempt at even a mild look at cause and effect of the policies they propose at Labour HQ? 
Probably not.

 

David Lammy MP, had articles on a report he helped to compile in favourable media outlets complaining about the number of minority kids in jail.

 How likely they are to go to prison for drug and firearms and offences and how unlikely they are to receive jobs once they are released. And his stats on the face of it are quite shocking. 

41% of under 18's are from minority backgrounds. But 48% of all prisoners are Christians. So do they also need special treatment? The 41% stat is only 5% of all prisoners. The total stat isn't given. If it was still 41% of ALL prisoners that would be a shocker. 

HMG gives the total figures, which have not changed much since 2005, as 12-13% black. 7-8% Asian. 4% mixed race. That's still bad as 2011 census tells us that only 3-4% of the country identifies as black. 

Where Lammy says this "I expected to find the youth justice system laser-focused on this issue. Instead, I have seen large parts of the system indifferent to issues of race," he is an idiot.

Of COURSE the justice system isn't concerned about race. Justice is blind. 

There is no quota system or each minority with excess offenders being let off. 

Where he says "The disproportionate number of BAME young people in the justice system is a social time-bomb. It is beyond time to stop talking about this problem and to act" he is partly right. 

Asians making up 7-8% of the population make up 7-8% of the prison population, don't seem to be the problem.  So its more of a BME problem.

On the point of giving re-offenders a job, he might be right that only something like a tax incentive or salary payment will help.

As a young interviewer doing the choices for a shop management position I was going to propose someone with a spent criminal conviction. My boss advised against.

"Even if this person turns out to be manager of the year, you personally won't gain anything from it. No one will thank you. if they turn out to still be a criminal you have a lot of explaining to do."

The re offending rates are huge. The best risk would be a fifty-fifty. So I left it.

That said , my most senior manager was a black guy from a Croydon gang background. He always gave other BAME, and white bad news kids a chance. Always. Despite all my protestations not to do it. And he had about a 50% success rate with them. 

but I doubt this manager,  my friend, even with his gang tats and gold tooth and bandana would agree with much of where Lammy lays blame.

Feel free to comment away.

Richard Murphy wants to use natural disasters as left-wing leverage, nice

How about this corker from Richard Murphy today:


"Hurricane Irma is continuing to batter the Caribbean. At a human level there can only be concern for tall those affected, and a desire that all that can be done to restore normal life in the places impacted will happen.
But the Caribbean is not a politics free zone, and nor is Hurricane Irma. I will leave aside the obvious global warming issues and the politics of that. I will mention instead that many of the places affected are tax havens. And many of them are British.
I sincerely hope that the UK government does supply all the assistance required to these places, as they will also do to those other places without such support. But I make the point that if we are to honour our responsibilities, then so should they. The British Caribbean tax havens can only exist because of the guarantee that the UK supplies, the legal system that the UK supplies and the regulation that we support. There is a cost to that. We will bear ours, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that those places who need us to do so respond in kind. That means they deliver accounts on public record, registers of beneficial ownership of companies and trusts for all to inspect and new regimes of transparency in all that they do.
And for those who think this isn’t the time to ask I would point out that even neoliberals think that the role of government is to act as a back stop. When the governments of the UK’s Caribbean tax havens rely on us to take that role then now is precisely the time to remind them of their reciprocal responsibilities, whilst continuing to supply all the support that is needed."


http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/07/hurricane-irma-and-the-uks-caribbean-tax-havens/


This is some effort, it shows up some classic left-wing authoritarian thinking:


- Everything must be viewed through the prism of politics, even natural disasters.


- The UK is at fault and is the evil player here, supporting the poor colonials to become victims.


- Help should only be forthcoming to those who follow a particular political agenda or point of view.


It is a deeply depressing summary of the weltanshauung that has evolved on the left over the past few years; a huge intolerance of anyone or thing that is different - notably those of right-wing political views. It is an amazing outcome of a focus on identity politics that it turns into such a divisive monster, with the added  the zest of moral hatred for those who do not conform - and as shown here, a desire to use force to abuse those who do not choose the path of the Left.

Bell Pottinger does an 'Andersen'

It is all over fro Bell Pottinger, as a PR firm having your reputation besmirched (for entirely accurate an fair reasons), really is the end. They can go on about keeping clients etc, but nearly all their major accounts will be firing them today and that will be that. There will be no money to keep the payroll going and then there maybe spurious lawsuits to pay for with no cash to be found.


Stick a fork it in, it's done.


It is very reminiscent of the 2001/2 Enron scandal that ended Arthur Andersen as a global accounting business. They got caught colluding with Enron and that was that, all the clients left and the business was forced to do mini-mergers country by country with other firms, in the UK they joined Deloitte.


But this is a very good thing overall, you may think the UK losing a leading PR agency is a bad thing, but it really shows the rule of law in action and that immoral and irresponsible behaviour has consequences. At a time when all things British are being undermined by the EU, it is a strong signal that the UK remains a strong, rules-based Western democracy. Compare and contrast with South Africa where the people who hired the firm face no consequences and just laugh at the outcome.


Hopefully the better people at Bell Pottinger will get new jobs quickly enough and the world can move on, these experiences tend to be cathartic for an industry overall when the regulators and rules are driven to act.

Oil Price Forecast? 'Up' or 'Down' Would be Nice

Writing as someone whose willingness to be tempted to say stuff about future oil prices has (rightly) been mocked, I had to smile at these two adjacent headlines:

Oil Price: Hurricane Harvey Is A Disaster For OPEC ... refinery outages could eat into crude oil demand for quite some time: Goldman says that the supply outages could be outweighed by the destruction of demand.

Reuters: Harvey may succeed where OPEC has struggled by boosting oil prices ... according to a report from S&P Global Platts, onshore shale oil output was in the storm’s path ... and producers in the region have idled production.

See - nobody knows!  And that's before Fat Boy exploded his H-bomb: stew that one in!  The Beeb is in on it, too:

Why economic forecasting has always been a flawed science: Radio 4 examines why experts often get predictions wrong – and meets the people who get them right 

More like they met a handful of stopped clocks who presumably told the time correctly on a couple of occasions.  Nope: 'experts' can't even agree on up or down (and when they do, it's probably time to go contrarian).  There are many, many reasons to agree with Keynes, Galbraith and Drucker that price-forecasting based on 'fundamental analysis' or similar is not intellectually respectable.  That's quite apart from its track record being diabolical.

Still, people believing in forecasts are what makes the world go round.  The bookie always has a deal for you ... and all those spec assets become sunk costs.   Well - someone had to build the railways.

ND 

A smidge too far - The 2017 election story

 Theresa's Gamble.
The attempt to seize a corridor from the Tory Midlands to the North and open the way for the occupation of Labour's industrial heartlands.

Mayday in Japan

I hold no candle for Mrs May, nearly losing an election to actual commies in a right wing country is unforgivable.

But today the news leads with her saying she will stay on and fight another election. This is classic non-story news. Asked a question she gave an answer to put it to bed, after all she is in Japan, trying to get some sort of trade deal going and also offer re-assurance from the Korean menace.

But our intrepid political reporters never give up,why leave the cosy Westminster bubble stories alone when you can create them on demand like this?

What was the PM supposed to say, anything that indicates hesitation and the media line will be she is wobbling and the next call is to Boris. It is a silly and juvenile game indeed.

Re Japan, nice to see Nissan massively expanding its Sunderland production and aiming to increase the use of U.K. Parts. Good deal struck by the Government there, how strange this does not get a mention in the FT - a quality paper also reduced to juvenile behaviour by its editor.

George Osborne: a Rhetorical Question

I was amused to see this piece, with its plaintive headline: 

Why is George Osborne always supporting the EU against Britain?

Come on, we know the answer to this!  He is an unutterable four-letter man, and a shameless one to boot.  He is firmly of the view that at some point in his future the serried ranks of the Conservative Party will dispatch a delegation to his door who, upon bended knee, will beg him to become their leader and PM.

I hope to live long enough to see him realise this ain't gonna happen.  If the Party still exists in any shape to command a Parliamentary majority, it will be because Someone Else has successfully taken charge, at which point No-one Else Need Apply.

Trouble is, Osborne's quite a bit younger than me and he'll probably go to his own grave still awaiting that knock on the door.

ND

A Nice Bit of Green on Green Action

One of the funnier things in the 'green energy' space is the sight of competing greens going for each other's throats.   Nothing unusual about a bit of strife in any walk of life; except that greens tend to imagine themselves to be untainted by the dark side, inhabiting a world of virtue, moral superiority, and general sweetness and solar-powered light.

But who do they imagine will build the enterprises they support so vehemently, to harvest the sun and the wind, the moonbeams and the pixie-dust?  Capitalists, that's who!  People who know free money when they smell it , and make a bee-line for it: out of my way, ain't nothing gonna get between me and free money.  Well what did they expect?

Speaking of bees, let's start with Mark Shorrock.  "He keeps honeybees" gushes his website.  He also keeps after public subsidies, in particular for his crazy Swansea Tidal Lagoon (on which, I am pleased to say, the Tories have fallen silent, after a hint in the 2015 manifesto they were going to pour public money its way).  He also has rather destructive plans for the Cornish countryside; and a lot of questionable "related party" transactions with his wife's company, AIM-listed Good Energy, that have got right up the noses of Good Energy shareholders.

Amongst the largest of whom is Dale Vince, one of the most prominent green entrepreneurs and another who would have you believe he is as innocent as a new-born lamb (or tomato, I suppose, since he promotes veganism).  Google his dealings with his ex wife for a character reference, if you are interested.  His firm, Ecotricity (privately held) and the windfarm subsidies it has garnered, have made him extremely wealthy - enough to buy around a quarter of Good Energy, with whom he has been in a less-than-fraternal "who's the greenest?" slagging match for many years.  

Sadly for spectators, the planned showdown - an EGM for Vince to force a vote on his claim to a couple of Good Energy directorships - seems to have been deferred.  But to say Vince has "surrendered" is to misunderestimate the man, who is as ruthless a British businessman as I have ever encountered this side of the law, and has by far the deeper pockets relative to Mr & Mrs Shorrock.  More fun and games to come, it's fair to guess.

ND

Net Migration falls - The power of Nudge proven at last

Do you remember under the halcyon days of David Cameron, when the Government was obsessed by the concept of this book?

Which basically says, rather than be a pure busy body nanny state and tell people not to eat bad food, you can create incentives via taxes or social signals that overall will change behaviours. It seemed great, less money could be spent, the Government could still play a role a nanny, but in a less authoritarian manner - so perfect for Cameron's continuity New Labour governing style.


We now have a really good example of this, the vote to Leave the EU in large part about the concerns around immigration - check out some of these ONS truth bullets that confirm why people were indeed concerned:


"Last year around one in seven residents were born abroad, and one in 11 had non-British nationality.
Another dataset released on Thursday showed that more than a quarter (28.2%) of births in England and Wales were to women born outside the UK, the highest level on record.






Statisticians said that despite an overall decline in the number of births between 2015 and 2016, births to mothers born overseas increased by 2.1% as foreign-born women make up an increasing share of the female population of childbearing age.




Brent in north-west London was the local authority area with the highest percentage of births to non-UK-born women, at more than three quarters (76.0%)."






So we voted Leave, a big social signal. Here we are 12 months later an indeed EU migration has fallen and emigration has increased. A net fall to a still unsustainable +246,000 a year - still a new Norwich or Blackpool or Milton Keynes every year.


But the 'Nudge' has worked hasn't it - immigration from the EU is falling after we have voted to leave the EU. At last, Cameron and his acolyte Steve Hilton have proof that the ideas they put into practice actually work.

Scope for Mischief Here

A document I would very much like to read is the baleful Hinkley Point contract awarded to EDF.  We've seen about 90% of it (as far as one can tell), and that was quite bad enough - but the really juicy stuff was redacted.

There is however someone who has a full copy (or perhaps full-er ...)  - in the European Commission!**

UK calls on EU to prevent leaks of sensitive information after Brexit: Demand for continued protection on departure highlights growing mistrust between London and Brussels 

We may get to see this document after all !

ND 
_______
** they had to approve it, for reasons of 'state aid' 

The end of QE remains unplanned - why?

There is an interesting article by Douglas Carswell on Unherd today.


In it he shows both his grasp of the situation and also the lack of any nous to deal with it.


Correctly, he identifies QE as being one of the main drivers of social ill over the past decade. The rich indeed have got richer through no effort other than pure financial alchemy - assets have gone up in price, if you owned assets, then yippee!


Meanwhile debt has been too cheap, now everyone has debt and even the Government is overly keen on saddling people such as students with debt. The Government has both too much deficit and debt - as do most around Europe.


That this is the fault of the Central Bankers is undeniable - conservative types, as you would want, they have done very little for the past 5 years. Last year in the UK they even decreased rates further.


Worse, there is still no plan for unwinding QE, in an off-guard moment last year one leave to the Bank was busily promoting the opposite - suggesting QE was here forever and interest rates could never be raised back to what were considered normal levels.


I find this very hard to buy, it is the classic "this time, its different" mantra that never works out as its proponents say. What happened was that the economies of the West, loaded by too much private sector debt due to the banking bubble, collapsed and to avoid destruction, the Government took on the debt.


Thanks to that, the Government's are prepared to wait a generation or two for the debt to inflate away (this time via currency depreciation, hence the currency depreciation war of the past 7 years). So there is limited immediate pain. I can see why civil service mandarins and central bankers think this is the best way forward, which for them it is. It sees continuity of service for themselves and their class.


Where Carswell goes well off target is endorsing the mad Labour plans for more debt and financial alchemy to double-down on the mistakes of the past! How even more QE is supposed to fix the current problems is beyond me - asset prices (this time of chosen assets, remember Gordon Brown and the Gold sale!) would still rise and the side effect maybe some more infrastructure - but the main event would be crippling Japan style debt.


The only sensible course is to wean us off QE. This will be painful, reversing QE will reduce Government revenue, which means less spending, because today it is getting on for £10 billion in Government income - all from money printed by its own bank and lent to itself.


We can't raise rates too high, as that affects those most hurt by the debt bubble, those without assets. We will likely need higher taxes on capital gains, including houses, to make up the hole in Government finances.


I don't like ever advocating tax rises, so I won't - the balance to increasing capital gains taxes must be reducing income taxes further - perhaps not quite in balance as their is QE to be unwound and a deficit to clear. But a re-basing of the tax system based on the current economic environment is long-overdue. Really, the most surprising thing is that is a necessity of the change in Central Bank monetary policy and you would think they might raise is sometime, that they don't is a bug of the system where monetary and fiscal oversight are separated.

Weekend Yarn: An Almighty Fail

Yesterday I poked fun at the non-existent proof-reading skills of my roofer.  But it isn't only humble tradesmen that can come unstuck: it can happen to exalted professionals as well.  Harken to one of Old Drew's war-stories  - and mark well ... 

 *  *  *  *  *

Twenty-five years ago during the first 'Dash for Gas', a sellers' market prevailed for a while in natural gas.  One of the very largest oil-and-gas producers who shall remain nameless, let's call it *xx**,  interpreted this cyclical state of affairs as a licence for unbridled commercial arrogance, and had a juicy chunk of gas for sale.  They put it out to market, telling prospective buyers that the sale would be under the terms of a long-term contract they'd drafted themselves, and the only matter for negotiation was the price:  all other contractual aspects would be per the *xx** diktat.  

This was not the norm: such contracts are very long and generally bespoke, and the details would ordinarily be up for genuine bilateral negotiation.  Several potential buyers read the uncompromising *xx** document and politely observed that the text wasn't beyond improvement, for the benefit of all parties.  They were shown the door.  The winning bidder accordingly sent its negotiators and lawyers simply to check the agreed price had been correctly entered in the space provided, and to conduct the usual round-table proof-reading of the 250-page document.  (Half a dozen people sit there reading one page each in turn, out loud, and it is hoped that typos and other cock-ups will thereby be nailed.)

At one point during proof-reading, progress was momentarily halted when the reader of the page in question read out the phrase "... the either Party ...".  Hoho!, everyone said - that's not English, it's a cock-up!  So they solemnly eradicated the otiose "the" and completed their monotonous task.

A few years later the inevitable happened: the sellers' market became a buyers' market and this particular gas contract became horribly out-of-the-money for the buyer - so much so, the buyer got into financial difficulties and was taken over.  The acquirer of said company set the lawyers to work on the dire contract ... and what did they find?

"Change of Control:  In the event of a change of control of a Party, either Party may terminate this Agreement."

Gotcha!  And the acquirer solemnly served a termination notice.  

Of course, *xx** rushed to the courts claiming Manifest Error: obviously it should have read "the other Party".  Well, usually it would.  But, consistent with the glories of the Common Law, since both buyer and seller were big companies well able to look after themselves, the words of the contract said what they said and the court rightly threw out their case.

And indeed, that was that: with one bound, the acquirer was free of the burdensome deal.  Back at *xx** - a firm well-known for control-freakery - the very senior head of the gas division was rather publicly moved to post that (how shall we put it?) didn't represent a promotion.

There but for the Grace of God ..?  Hard to suppress a chuckle, though, in the circumstances.  Read the bloody small print!  Carefully!!

ND

Always Read The Small Print

One day when I was newly-minted one-pip in the army, one of my soldiers came to me with a form that needed initialling by an officer.  Since this happened at least twenty times a day, it was no big deal.  I could see it wasn't the usual permit for a military vehicle journey or weekend out of barracks - it was something to do with an application for a car loan - but I signed it anyway, without reading the finer details.

It came back to bite me on the bum in less than 48 hours.  I'd inadventently claimed to be "assistant paymaster or equivalent" and was in for a bollocking at Regimental HQ.  Needless to say I made a vow ... 

When, many years later, I found myself dealing ginormous energy contracts, I carried this resolution through by being the annoying negotiator who'd actually read the two-thirds of the 250-page contract that is 'legal boilerplate'.  There'd always be something being passed across in there.  It always makes me snort when advertisers and salespeople people wave airily at the "T's & C's" as if they are some quaint and meaningless decorative runes that appear by convention on ceremonial bits of paper that are scattered around like confetti to celebrate the closing of the deal.  FFS - the "T's & C's" are the deal ! 

Anyhow, to get to the point:  we are having some roofing works done at Schloss Drew, and our shortlisted contractor handed over the usual duplicating-paper sheet with illegible small-print in 6-point (grey) on the back.   Fortunately, my scanner and OCR software are up to the job, and this is just one example of what I found.

Sic !  Suffice to say, the works will be carried out under a contract of my own devising.   I imagine the said contractor (who self-evidently has no more read his own documents than any of his previous clients) will be using my version in the future - and he'll not suffer too much in the event of dispute, since I am nothing if not a reasonable person ...

ND

No change in Ireland for Brexit - or is there?

In a week where some demented person having a breakdown is merrily providing the press with all sorts of nonsense stories, reality is slow to creep back to the table.


Just as James Chapman accuses David Davis of being a part-time layabout, he comes forward with all the proposals the EU has been asking for.


Interestingly, the UK Government has chosen the strategy that I find works really well. Admit defeat, agree to the enemy demands and then see what they do. On Ireland, the proposal is that nothing much changes with the exception of some agri-tariffs.


This meets perfectly what the EU wanted; but its a nightmare for Ireland - effectively it means in theory they could end up the "The Jungle" in Ireland, either at the NI border or in NI itself.


To me this is super idea - no immigrant is going to want to hang around forever in the hideous physical and social climate of Northern Ireland - it is like our own version of the successful, but much maligned, Australian strategy of holding immigrants in an off-shore processing centre. 


So we push most of the problems back to the EU by being broadly compliant with their demands. I like this strategy, there are many ways for it to fail - basically, the EU can always be unreasonable whatever we decide to do, given we are leaving and Article 50 is triggered, but this is nice approach.


Shame everyone is too busy slagging off the entire Government to notice or to give it any credit when it does get things right.

Power Play or Shell Game?

Eyebrows should be raised as Shell moves into the power market.  Why?  Because oil companies have been proven to be crap at electricity.  That includes Shell itself first time around when they - and BP, and Total, and Statoil, and Conoco, and Amerada Hess ... - tried, and screwed it up (this was in the '90s and early 00's).

It looked so logical, so easy.  They were (and are) big, big companies - energy specialists, no less, who had done OK in the gas markets when they got started around the globe in the 80's and 90's; they knew about trading and risk-management and marketing; they had ultra-credible brand names for the sector.

At least, that's what they thought.   But, to make a long story short, similarities notwithstanding it turns out trading electricity is an order of magnitude more difficult than gas.   There have only been two non-electricity companies to make a serious fist of the power market via organic development: Centrica / British Gas and the mighty Enron, both originally gas players.  (If someone points to Gaz de France - now 'Engie' - or Gazprom's European trading vehicle GM&T, the response is that neither of these moves into power were organic.  GdF simply bought Electrabel; and GM&T hired big teams of existing power specialists (and in any event haven't made waves in the power sector).)

So now Shell are trying again.  They are sticking to the easy segment of the market - sales to industrial customers - and can probably make a go of it if they hire enough of the right people (including at the top: will they make the mistake of assuming one of the old senior oil hands can manage this electricity stuff?).  They have certainly let fly with the PR: see that mighty FT puff-piece linked above, and this gullible nonsense:

"Shell becomes latest energy disruptor: the UK’s energy industry is braced for change as the world’s second-largest oil and gas company is to supply electricity"

The FT piece (Nick Butler, natch: they obviously gave him one of those really nice lunches) is just as sycophantic: 

"Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one ... Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply ... Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices"

Ho hum, let's see how they do.  "Soaking up supply" is a crass business concept in a commodity market.  "Supplier of choice"?  In yer dreams, Shell.  "Shaping prices"?  Nope, just selling on price to buy market share, like any other new entrant in a commodity sector.  When Gazprom entered the industrial market they needed to take a massive haircut as buyers simply laughed and pocketed the windfall while it lasted - which in their case was several years.  Butler actually admits as much: "prices presumably set at a discount to the market". 

Yup. A short-lived price war.  Not so much a disruption as a harmless diversion.   

ND

Those Oh-So-Rational Germans

A primary go-to website for energy buffs is the excellent Energy Matters blog run by Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews, two first-rate analysts who somehow find time to keep their tremendous material pumping out for free.  Go and have a poke around, if you haven't been there before.  One of their regular features is a handy news round-up each week, from which we obtain this neat evidence of collective madness in Germany.

Yes, (a) the Germans are big fans of their ridiculous 'energy policy' (which sees them paying extravagant electricity prices), and at the same time (b) German CO2 emissions continue to rise.  Expensive and futile virtue-signalling by anyone's standards.

I am sure Greek citizens are equally delighted that their economy is in thrall to German bankers. 

(Meanwhile, in other news Cuadrilla et al are on the march and the shale drilling is underway in N.England ...)

ND

Buzzfeed Brexit review

Normally a vocal part of the daily remain, Buzzfeed has hot off the press a new, large-scale, study into peoples views on Brexit.


It makes poor reading for remainers - after filtering out the mostly contradictory statements which people want as their preferred Brexit, it finds that UKIP and Tories are for a 'Hard Brexit', whilst the Labour and others are split 60/40 in favour of a 'Soft Brexit.'


So this means that the majority prefer a Hard Brexit option in the Country over a soft one and there is really very little appetite for re-running the whole thing as the London Media and Chatterati are endlessly suggesting should happen.


It just goes to show, it really is hard to make people change their minds and that in addition, taking the side of the Elite and Entitled just won't work. For these reasons, Brexit is happening - this is the realisation that keeps both May and Corbyn ignoring the media chatterati; because at the end of the day they have to face the people again one day and need to be seen to be on the side of the people.


So what is the current view, what Brexit are we going to get?

Nuclear War - the world should make this avoidable

It is really quite worrying that this is being discussed.


What lesson should we really learn, to me the obvious one is that we desperately need the UN Security Council to have more muscle.


North Korea should have been stopped from getting hold of Nuclear Weapons, history has shown us that they are very safe in a MAD environment when controlled by sane Governments. North Korea is not sane, never has been - not an adult country that can be trusted with Nukes.


The list of countries like this is quite long, but not overly so. Few societies manage to fail so spectacularly over such a long-period of time, although being communist tends to be a strong marker for this.


The next on my list is Pakistan, utterly corrupt country and culture with religious extremism thrown in too and an existential fear of India. Only then would we get to the likes of Iran.


However, surely North Korea shows that the sanctions process is very key over the longer term - Iraq, with hindsight, even proves that.


I do wonder now that the hell China is going to do in the current circumstances - after all without Chinese help North Korea would still be a peasant state instead of nuclear armed terror threat. It is hard to know as I guess there is potential for China to like the idea of the North eliminating its rivals in South Korea and Japan - equally though, in statecraft the Chinese operate effectively over decades and are useless when things have to be done over days or weeks. A tricky situation indeed, the US is out of the game now, as any sate is when threatened with MAD.

Rights and respobsibilites - online fraud and the security war

Quite interesting, and I dare say, courageous, for the CEO of RBS to come out today and complain about his own customers.


I may be being a little partial, but he basically says they are stupid, fall for obvious scams and as such should not be recompensed.


It is very hard to have much sympathy for RBS  - after all, they managed to blow, er, £48 billion on stupid scams and lending which then then asked the taxpayer to bail out with no hope of ever seeing the money again.


So RBS do not start from a good place to preach. However, it is a growing scandal as to how much banks spend on compensating customers for online fraud, well over £1 billion a year in the UK.


There is a balance to be struck, no one wants to have to remember several passwords and use two or three key input devices in order to access their online accounts; on the other hand, the light touch access is easily hacked.


Online crime must surely be the fastest growing type of crime in the world alongside people trafficking in 2017.


So where does the line lie? It can't be right that people hand over their details to strangers or transfer money to strangers and the bank picks up the tab every time. There is a level of responsibility. On the other hand, people get conned, part the job of the bank is to stop this happening to their valued customers.


It is hard, just last week I was called by a guy who was referencing people I knew, telling me about his company and project and then subtlety asking for some key details from myself. It was a very high level scam (called Spear Phishing apparently) where quite some effort had gone into researching my background and contacts ( I would guess through linked-in). Only some tough questioning on my part made them hang-up the phone. The scammers are getting better and better and the Banks must be really worried about how they can keep up in the security war.


I am still not convinced blaming the customers is the answer, but it shows how worried the Banks are.

The Impact of 'Police Cuts' Down My Way

A peaceful Saturday morning in the suburbs - but what's this?  Three squad cars turn up, one after another - has a fight broken out in the florists?  Terror in the trattoria?

Details obscured to protect the, ahem, innocent ...

The clue lies above the shopfront with the red awning.  Yes, it's a(nother) coffee morning for the boys and girls in blue.  Like every other morning of the week around here, save the Lord's Day.  And tea in the afternoons.

The percentage of the total patrolling force in this neck of the woods represented by 3 cars-worth at this time of day must be pretty high.  But I'm sure the local commander has bemoaned the impact of budget cuts upon his ability to patrol the streets as he'd like.  

So here's a suggestion ...

ND

BBC Online - Part 2

 

  As we saw here, the BBC IS a world leader in news reporting. BBC Worldwide is watched in hotels worldwide. 350 million people a week are reportedly watching some content from the various BBC world channels and programmes made.
Its very, very worthy. Equally as worthy and dull as CNN worldwide. The bland leading the bland.

Closer to home BBc News has dropped huge market share since the digital revolution and the rise of workable, readable smart phones. 3-4% year on year decline since 2012. Predicted 25-30% decline in viewers watching any TV news by 2022. And those that are watching are averaging 61 years of age. 

So to retain market share, online focus must be the future. The man or woman sitting behind a desk format is coming to an end. Which is just as well as TV channels have exhausted the ways of showing the same thing.
 Person behind desk. Phone on desk. No phone. Laptop on desk. Spindly glass desk showing persons legs. Person in front of desk. Balanced on a high stool with no desk. Filmed side on, instead of to camera.. Sitting on a low comfy sofa facing a digital screen. Desk in the middle of a glass box 360* panoramic swiveling. There's really only under the desk and lying flat on the sofa with a bowl of nachos left.

Back to the BBC.

This self censorship is seriously damaging their brand. Because of the politically correct attempts to avoid mention of race or religion in any way, means some news items make no sense at all when read on the BBC website.

During the French election there was a story about riots by French schoolchildren. Secondary school age kids were blockading and threatening to burn down schools. Bizarre. 
The piece suggested this would help Le Pen. 

There was no indication of why this would help Le Pen. No clue at all.
 On further investigation elsewhere the story was about a black boy, who claimed he was caught and raped by the French police with a police baton  This led to the rioting in the black areas of Paris. With a few kids on social media calling for protest and the barricading of streets and schools. 

Essentially, this was a race story. Disaffected banileue youth. Policing, tensions and immigration.
And that's why it would it was thought to favour Le Pen.
Later on the BBc expanded the story and it was reported with context. And made much more sense. But it was a few days on.

A more recent story was the GTA gang in Moscow. 3 defendants killed in courtroom escape bid.
In the BBC piece it emerged that the gang were suspected of killing 17, unrelated, motorists on the roads outside Moscow. For no reason. Over a long period of time. 
Cars had their tires blown with homemade traps. And the occupants murdered. No robbery took place.

What the ..? What's going on here?

The very last sentence of the piece gives a clue. 

One of them had fought for so-called Islamic State in Syria before returning to Russia, Russian television reported.

And going anywhere else reveals this is not a bandit gang story at all. Its a terrorist story. An Islamic state terror group are committing the killings. That's the motive. Killing unbelievers.




On other news sites this is immediately apparent. So why was it not made clear? 
This strange decision to hide facts. Race and religion should not be mentioned. 
Even if it is extremely important to the story.

This is without all the other odd, impersonal noun, choices the wider media have been making recently. 

Truck kills ten on London Bridge.

Women wounded by knife in German supermarket.

Strange choice to make.

 And another reason not to ever bother sitting down to the main news at ten. 
With the solemn woman sat behind/in/on/adjacent to/under/suspended above/ or just flopped on a beanbag beside the desk.

***

All the news that's fit to print. 

New York Times masthead.

All the news deemed fit to print 

Updated millennial masthead ?

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."