Journeys - futile.

Absence is golden
A fondly remembered campaign in World War Two should be revived.

Posters asked ‘Is your journey really necessary?’  The great majority of politicians are now seriously worried that global warming is a lethal threat to the habitat of our descendants. We know the solutions but we are reluctant to embrace them.

Last night about half a dozen Labour MPs flew to London to take part in the Euro vote. They were accompanied on the same plane by a similar number of Conservative MPs. Today they flew back to the week long meeting that they attending. The Labour MPs voted for the Government the Tories against. Their votes cancelled each other’s out. The large majority would have been exactly the same if they had all stayed abroad.

The Labour majority was 138. The Daily Telegraph's  ludicrously inflated anticipated Labour revolt of 120 turned out to be 19.

There was a system of ‘pairing’ among MPs that has fallen into dis-use.

It was described in the past as a ‘gentleman’s’ agreement among individual MPs to abstain from voting. Both absences would cancel each other out. In the past I was hostile to the system and I have rarely used it. It was frequently abused as organised truancy and used as an excuse by lazy MPs to reduce their workload.

The environmental imperative and commons sense should prompt renewed interest in pairing and other travel reduction measures. Whips are by nature nervous and prone to unreasonable anxieties. In the past MPs have been hauled back from the far corners of the planets for trivial reasons. One was an expected key vote on the Dangerous Dogs Act. MPs on an delegation to Australia were brought home. There was no vote.

I understand that last night futile journeys were caused by the Tory's whip out to grab political advantage  by exciting the Euro-phobes. Pairing should be revived. Last night’s pantomime need never be repeated. I set an example yesterday - by pairing of course.

Farmers rule O.K.

The Farmers’ voice in the Welsh Assembly still dominates.

This morning’s news media probably over-emphasised the call to kill badgers in order to reduce the spread of bovine TB. Are they entirely disregarding the ten-year national study that concluded that badger culling will do little to prevent the spread of tuberculosis among cattle herds and may even exacerbate the problem by causing outbreaks in neighbouring regions.

The report by independent government advisers concluded that while badgers play a significant role in passing the disease on to cattle, culling the wild animals would not halt the spread of the disease by any meaningful extent and "may make matters worse".

Cattle tuberculosis was nearly cleared from Britain in the 1970s, but recorded cases have since soared, bringing a crisis to the farming industry.

The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, headed by John Bourne, professor of animal health at Bristol University, says the government should introduce stringent measures to protect cattle. It suggests newly purchased cattle are quarantined before having skin tests for the disease and calls for strict controls on cattle moving from high-risk areas to low-risk regions.

These measures are irksome for the farming industry. Slaughtering badgers is easy but almost certainly counter productive. But in Wales, farmers rule.

Breathtaking

It’s taken more than a century, but two rousing cheers should be raised for today’s progress on the Severn Barrage.

We have already had a few studies. The mighty powers of the tides that wash around the shores of Britain are our best hope for power that is clean, non-carbon, British and eternal.

Those howling for Peter Hain’s scalp may not know that Peter is the strong voice in the cabinet for renewables. He has persistently made the case for the Severn Barrage.

There are legitimate environmental objections. But no major energy source  is possible without major changes to our habitat.

There are worries that the scale of the barrage may be used as an excuse for delaying it. There is real enthusiasm in today’s Government statement that describes the plan as ‘breathtaking.’ The proof of the worth of tidal power is at La Rance in Brittany which produces the cheapest electricity in the world.

There should be a Plan B of marine alternatives. The power of tides can be harnessed without building walls across the flow. Simple ‘mills’ placed in the moving waters can use the energy of ebb and flow. The attraction of the Severn is its high tidal reach. The flow of water between Guernsey and France is one many other sites when electricity can be produced on a prodigious scale without barrages.

The Severn Barrage will be the start of a transformation of energy creation.

P.S. Jane Davidson's statement later this afternoon is very reassuring. The key sentence is, "I want to reassure members of the Assembly that this study will look at a wide range of options for capturing the energy of the Severn, including various lagoon and barrage configurations: there is no preferred option and the associated sustainable environment assessment will be as inclusive as is practicable."

Amen to that.

Comments

[Hen Ferchetan]

I didn't realise pairing had fallen out of favour. It makes perfect sense to me and I hope it gets popular again.

I guess one of the reasons it's lost popularity is that MP's want their voting figures to be high while whips don't want to leave anything to chance.

[paulflynn]

Thanks, Rwendland.I agree entirely that one mega project is vulnerable and not the most practical way forward for renewables. Glad you approve of Peter Hain - his role in the cabinet is far more important that his declaring donations late.

La Rance's turbines were found be in 'pristine' state after 20 years of operation, the source of pwere is free and there is no waste. I have using the quote for a long time- I'll look up the source.

[Rwendland]

Paul,

Do you have a source for your claim "La Rance in Brittany which produces the cheapest electricity in the world"?

AFAICS the economics of both barrages and nuclear depends crititcally on the discount rate used to cost the capital involved. Both were claimed economic at the 2-4% discount rates used by govt for such projects in the 1960-70s. But private financeers are using 8% to 15% discount rates for such projects now, making both uneconomic to private finance.

I suspect if you accept the La Rance financial claims, you also should accept the claims that 1970s nuclear power stations were economic - with cheap finance and all cost risks put onto future consumers rather than the finaniers. Is that an intellectual route you would want to follow?

I'm for renewable power, but if we want a large uptake we need to get the economics right. The occassional mega-project isn't the way to go. You are right to push sea turbine R&D though, as that has promise of widescale use. Lets not be distracted by a mega-barrage, which may delay R&D help for more promising ideas.

I see Peter Hain previewed Marine Current Turbines’ sea turbine site in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough last year. Good for Peter.

[paulflynn]

A cull would be be an evidence-free decision. What will they blame if TB increases again in the culled areas? I think you could be right and Rooker will plump for the slaughter and live to regret it.

[Chris Gale]

Thanks for the post on badgers Paul.
The next few weeks will be critical, will Rooker deliver a cull for his NFU friends or will someone at senior level in government realise that killing badgers to appease the NFU would be electoral suicide?

[Easy]

I thought you'd say that. Irony spot anyone?

[paulflynn]

It's the entirely worthwhile Council of Europe, which deals with human rights, monitors elections and has a good record of encouraging former communist countries to improve their human rights. All MP delegates are still in hourly contact with their constituents and regard it as additional work. Much more productive that adding 1 to a majority of 138.

[Easy]

What meeting are all these MPs at that is so important it's detaining them for a week from any constituency business, anyway?