Will The Next Crash Be Machine Made?

I'm lucky. I have some spare cash that I can invest. Where should it go? Conventional wisdom says that if I will not need to use it soon, or in a hurry, better returns are to be made in stocks and shares rather than relying on the miserably poor rates available from cash deposits.

The next question is "Do I stock pick myself, or rely on a number of funds?". Apart from a few stars the history of stock pickers is not great; and anyway, I really don't have the time to do the necessary research. So funds it is.

But should one pick active or passive funds? Index trackers are fine, and they're cheap (most of them!). However, I have a predilection for income over growth so may be active funds are the route to take.

It all sound logical, doesn't it? Unfortunately I've been reading about algorithmic trading and it's scary. Most index trackers are algorithmic - there's no need to do anything else except just react to the market; in other words, to what a few stock pickers and those active funds are doing. The first issue is that there is more and more invested in passive funds while active funds are shrinking. That means that markets are being driven by fewer and fewer funds.

That's not a problem, is it? After all, active funds have sensible, pragmatic people at the helm, don't they? Well, actually, no, they don't. Most active funds are also algorithm driven and although each individual algorithm may be understandable the way they interact with each other is totally opaque.

Can we trust these algorithms? Who knows? There certainly have been unexplained "blips" when markets have done really strange things. There are now siren voices calling for markets to be regulated back to a low complexity environment but is that really possible?

Meanwhile I'm just hanging in there and hoping. Since the 2008 crash markets have been steadily rising. Maybe the machines have got it right; or maybe it's yet another bubble. Fingers crossed!

Brexit and My MP: Part 25

Mrs Milton's email to me copied into part 24 of this sorry saga required a rapid response. Here it is:

Dear Ms Milton,

Thank you for your response to my email of 6 December 2017.

I am very well aware of the provisions of Article 50, including the contents of paragraph 3.

I am troubled that there appears to be no definition of the word "meaningful" in so far as it pertains to "a meaningful vote on the final deal". If it simply means that both Houses will debate whether to accept the proposed final deal, or to leave the EU with no deal, then it can hardly be termed meaningful. If it entails the possibility of sending the Government back to the negotiating table then the problems arising from paragraph 3 come into play. Could it, however, also include the option to withdraw the Article 50 notice? I would be very grateful for your clarification of this matter.

EC President Donald Tusk has stated that he believes the UK may withdraw its Article 50 notice prior to the 2 year deadline. Expert legal opinion supports this position. I refer you to the opinions of, among others,  Lord Kerr, Prof Stefan Enchelmaier, Prof Sir David Edward, Prof Kenneth Armstrong, and Dr Jan Komarek; all experts in matters of European Law.

When 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU in 2016 the consequences were unclear, and there was, obviously, no understanding of the likely contents of any EU-UK deal. It is clearly possible that the UK public could consider remaining in the EU as preferable to both accepting the final deal and to exiting with no deal. This is why, assuming that withdrawal of the article 50 notification is, indeed, possible within the 2 year time limit, I believe that the people of the UK should be given a timely opportunity to voice their collective opinion.

I still look forward to your responses to all the issues I raised in my email of 8 October.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

(See parts 1-24 earlier in my blog)

Brexit and My MP: Part 24

This is possibly the most depressing response I've had from my MP to date. For someone who voted "Remain" in the advisory referendum, and who is MP for a constituency where the majority vote was "Remain", to have so clearly now set her face against any reversal really beggars belief.

(Please look elsewhere in this Blog for the earlier 23 episodes in this sorry saga. Also I've now published Part 25 which is my reply.)

Dear Richard,

Thank you for contacting me about parliamentary approval of the final terms for leaving the EU.

The Government has announced that a new Bill will be introduced to implement the withdrawal agreement so that the deal that the UK reaches with the EU can be put directly into UK domestic law.  This includes the agreement reached on citizens' rights, any financial settlement and the implementation period.

This also means that Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords will be able to debate, scrutinise and vote on the final agreement made with the EU.  Both Houses of Parliament will have a meaningful vote on the final deal.  This will take place as soon as the deal is agreed and before the European Parliament votes on it.  I am clear that Parliament will have a full opportunity to have its say on the final agreement.

This Bill is also important for the Committee Stage of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill.  This is currently being scrutinised by the House of Commons.  Powers in EU (Withdrawal) Bill will, if necessary, be used to make more technical changes that are appropriate for secondary legislation.  The exact details of the UK's withdrawal arrangements are still subject to negotiation with the EU, which is why it is important to press ahead with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill and make sure that the UK's exit is delivered in a smooth and orderly way.

The Government has listened and will continue to listen to suggestions from Members of Parliament to improve the legislation relating to the UK's exit from the EU.  Legislators should work together to ensure that the UK can pursue a smooth and stable exit from the EU. This is in everyone's interest.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has now been invoked and there is a two-year period in which to agree a withdrawal deal.  EU law is clear that if a withdrawal agreement is not reached by the end of this period, the withdrawing country will simply leave the EU without any deal.

It is also not within the power of the UK Government to unilaterally extend the negotiating period.  EU law states that this period can only be extended with the unanimous agreement of the remaining member states of the EU and it may well not be in the gift of the Government to fulfil it.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

My best wishes,

Anne

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, Minister for Women

Wine and Cheese - A Tasting

We belong to an informal wine tasting circle and are occasionally called upon to present an evening's tasting. Our latest session was pairings of inexpensive wines and cheeses. All the former were sourced from Majestic and the latter from the deli counter at J Sainsbury apart from the taleggio which came from Waitrose. As the festive season is upon us I thought I'd post our impressions.

Graham Beck NV Brut (£11.99) plus La Rustique Brie (£9.50/kg).
A combination that worked. The wine has a fresh, yeasty flavour and the brie a nice creamy texture and slightly oniony taste. I scored the wine 8/10.

Pouilly Fume "Les Griottes" 2016 Jean-Pierre Bailly (£13.99) plus Bride Valley Goat's Cheese (£15.00/kg).
Bright lime and green apples taste to the wine. Not much gooseberry. Good value - 9/10. Goat's cheese perhaps a little mild for the combination but it worked.

Montepulciano d'Abruzzo 2015 Masciarelli (£9.99) plus Arrigoni Taleggio (£17.00/kg).
Disappointing wine. Something of a non-entity. What one participant described as "spaghetti supper" wine. Little depth - 6/10. I'm a taleggio nut so biased. I enjoyed the tangy nutty flavour of this offering.

Rioja "Single Vinyard" 2015 Ramon Bilbao (£8.99) plus Manchego Gran Reserva (£19.50/kg).
These worked well together. The Rioja is reasonable value for money. We've purchased it previously as a party wine which to my mind is its forte. Nice fruit, reasonable length, easy drinking - 7.5/10. The cheese (served with membrillo) had a sharp, sightly peppery flavour - good.

Rustenberg John X Merriman 2015 Stellenbosch (£15.99) plus English Vintage Reserve Cheddar (£12.00/kg).
I've purchased several other vintages of the wine as I regard it as excellent value for a Bordeaux grape combination. This was the first time I've tasted the 2015 which is well up to standard. It has a typical cassis, sour cherry and tobacco and although ok to drink now I think it will improve with aging for a few years - 9/10. The cheese was firm and strong with just the occasional crystal crunch. An excellent combination!

Croft Reserve Tawny Port (£13.99) plus Cropwell Bishop Stilton (£15.00/kg).
The port reflects its price; pleasant without suggesting anything exceptional - 8/10. The stilton was good - a rich and tangy flavour with just a hint of a smooth texture.

It was an enjoyable evening.

Market Leadership In Green Banking? Perhaps Not

The UK Government has ambitions for UK to be a green finance leader post-Brexit and just a couple of month's ago launched its Green Finance Taskforce. Now Edie reports that analysis by ShareAction into the green credentials of Europe's 15 largest banks has three UK banks (RBS, Standard Chartered and Lloyds) in the bottom 5 with assessed "scores" of 54, 52.5 and 37 out of 162. To its credit HSBC comes 3rd with a score of 92.5.

The real worry for the Government, though, will be the performance of French banks with 3 of them in the top 5. It is argued that this is being driven by innovative French legislation.

So the UK is playing catch up, again. The Brexit vision becomes dimmer by the day!

If Waste Plastics Don't Go To China Where Will They Go?

Edie reports that UK recycling companies fear that the upcoming restrictions by the Chinese on waste plastics imports risks increasing pollution at home. Shipping our waste overseas has always seemed to me to be a somewhat dodgy policy. Now the odd chicken appears to be coming home to roost.

Unfortunately, there would seem to be no robust plan on how to cope with this change. Michael Gove is obviously not on the ball: "I don't know what impact it will have. It is ..... something to which - I will be completely honest - I have not given it sufficient thought". A few marks for honesty then but what we really want is minsters and their departments doing a proper job. A Defra spokesperson trotted out the usual mantra: "We are continuing to work with the waste industry blah blah blah". Such statements mean absolutely nothing.

At a time when Brexit is already hitting the pocket of Joe Public the last thing he wants is his rates to rise because the price of export waste falls and the cost of UK disposal increases.

Brexit and my MP - Part 23

December 11th approaches and with it the debate on "a Vote on the Deal" triggered by a heavily supported petition. Consequently I'm having another little dig at my MP >>>>

Dear Mrs Milton,

Thank you for your 30th October response to my email of 8th October concerning amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

I am sure that by now you are aware of some my views on the various ramifications of Brexit. However, may I remind you that on Monday the 11th December, Members of Parliament will be debating a petition calling for the public to be given a vote on the final Brexit deal.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the team in charge of the negotiations is unable to deliver the Brexit that many believe was promised in last year's referendum campaign.

Whatever the outcome of the talks, there is no doubt that Britain will end up poorer. The Office of Budget Responsibility has already confirmed lower growth and productivity. That will lead to less money for investment in hospitals, training, roads and rail and will clearly hurt many, if not all, of your constituents.

That is why I believe that it is illogical, and morally indefensible, to deny the British people the final say on the deal.

Therefore, by this email, I am urging you to attend this debate and to support the petition - as well as similar amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that you will be attending the debate (or supporting it if you can't attend) or your explanation if you are unable to or unwilling to.

May I further point out that in my 8th October email I requested similar explanations of your approach to the four amendments I highlighted therein. Your response of 30th October failed to supply such explanations. Brexit threatens the greatest fundamental changes to the life in the United Kingdom for some 40 years and, if enacted, will have repercussions that will last for decades. In a representative democracy you, as my MP, speak and act on my behalf and for my fellow constituents. It seems to me only right that we should know what you are doing in our joint names, and why.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

 Richard Bawden


HEY! CHECK OUT THE REST OF MY BLOG. IT AIN'T ALL DOOM AND GLOOM.

Brexit and my MP - Part 22

Ye Gods! Is there no end to this woman's capacity to produce anodyne garbage? Once again she has failed utterly to address any of the points I raised in my original. It is small wonder that MPs, in general, command such little respect. She is my representative in Parliament - surely I have some right to know why she is doing what she is doing?

   

Dear Richard

 

Thank you for contacting me about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the amendments tabled by my colleague, Dominic Grieve MP.

This Bill is about respecting the referendum result and making sure that the UK has a functioning statute book after the UK leaves the EU. It is a complex piece of legislation and an unprecedented number of amendments have tabled on it.

I am looking very carefully into the amendments tabled by my colleague, Dominic Grieve MP. I have also been assured that my colleagues in Government are giving their utmost attention to all of the amendments. I have asked Ministers for the latest information on them so that we have a smooth and orderly exit from the EU.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me and please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to help on this or any other matter.

 

My best wishes,
Anne

 

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, Minister for Women

   

Brexit and Science

As a scientist (or, perhaps more correctly, an ex-scientist) I do still spare a little time attempting to keep up with the scientific world. One of the many troubling aspects of the Brexit process is the apparent lack of any substantive plan for scientific collaboration with the EU when the "big stupid" finally happens.

The Government's position paper, published a couple of months ago, is long on warm words and woefully short of practical solutions. A lot of it is couched in the utterly facile "strong and stable" vein.

It is fine to call for "a more ambitious and close partnership with the EU than any yet agreed between the EU and a non-EU country" but this needs to be backed up with evidence of how this might be achieved.

Problems abound. Take, for instance, the Horizon 2020 programme. Currently the UK is a full member with voting rights on the future of the programme. After Brexit it is unlikely that the UK will have anything better than take-it-or-leave-it associate status. How is that "more ambitious and close"?

And that is a programme where third-party access is possible. What about all those EU-only schemes? The European Defence Research Programme is one such. The position paper feebly states that the UK would "welcome dialogue". And on Nuclear R&D there is a similarly pathetic hope "to find a way to continue to work with the EU". This is hardly inspirational stuff!

All this is symptomatic of the cack-handed approach HMG is taking to Brexit. We will all be the poorer as a result.

One More Thing to Worry About

Do you use a voice assistant to control any of your household devices? A recent hijack demonstration has shown that it's possible to take over an assistant using ultrasound signals - i.e. something that you and I cannot hear. The neatly-named DolphinAttack was not easy to achieve but never-the-less achieved it was. Furthermore, it's something that it should be relatively easy to guard against. However, it just shows that we need to be thinking widely about cyber-security at all times.

Brexit and My MP - Part 21

Fix the date and time of exit???? What an idiotic idea! Another missive to my MP

Dear Mrs Milton

 

In my recent perusals of the many proposed amendments to EU Withdrawal Bill I missed references to enshrining the exit date and time in law. I was alarmed and appalled, therefore, to read the following this morning:

 

"It will be there in black and white on the front page of this historic piece of legislation: the United Kingdom will be leaving the EU on March 29, 2019 at 11pm GMT."

 

I wrote to you some time ago about the folly of the premature triggering of Article 50, a warning that I believe has been borne out by subsequent events. To now fix the date of leaving in this way compounds that folly and would represent a move of negotiating suicide. I urge you to do everything in your power to exercise good judgement and ensure that such a step gets nowhere near the statute book.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Richard Bawden

Other parts of this sorry saga elsewhere in my blog.

At Last - Some Good News for Bees

The pressure that has been building for a ban on neonicotinoids appears to be having some effect with Mr Gove apparently "getting the message". Good. Better still that the man who said we'd had enough of experts finally seems to be listening to a few. Let's hope this new found common sense spreads to other areas. Brexit perhaps? Some hopes!

Another Brilliant Piece of Parking

'Nuff said!

Brexit and My MP - Part 20

Proposed amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill are thick on the ground. Some are more pertinent than others and a number drill right to the heart of the matter. The following is winging its way to my MP:

Dear Mrs Milton

I have written to you before about how the public cast their votes in the Brexit referendum in ignorance of the potential outcomes, the need for proper scrutiny of proposed deals, the proper exercise of our representative democracy, and the desirability for voters to have their say when there is more certainty about what Brexit would entail. Furthermore, I believe it is essential that in any deal the UK remains in the Single Market. Finally, there are overwhelming moral and practical arguments for the rights of EU citizens in the UK to be protected.

There are 4 particular amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill to which I urge you to add your name by tomorrow, November 9th.

These are:

• Amendment 7 designed to ensure that Parliament has a vote on the Deal;
• Amendment 120 which provides for a referendum on the Deal before the UK leaves the EU;
• Amendment 124 which ensures that any deal negotiated by the Government must keep the UK in the Single Market; and
• Amendment 131 to preserve the rights of EU Citizens after Brexit.

I would be very grateful if you would confirm that you have, indeed, signed these amendments. If you are unable, or unwilling, to do so I would be very interested in your reasons for taking such a position.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

I'm not holding my breath - but, you never know ............................

Meanwhile, please do look at other parts of this saga elsewhere in my blog.

SSE and nPower

Gosh! What goes around, comes around. I recall many a meeting in Southern's offices in Maidenhead, and a lot  of spreadsheet bashing, in the 1990s when I was part of a National Power team looking at how the two companies might merge. It didn't come off, of course, and National Power went on to combine with other suppliers, and demerge to form Innogy/nPower.

This move, assuming it goes ahead, will reduce the "big six" to five which is hardly a boost to competition. This will increase an already unpleasant headache for the government where persistent meddling in an imperfect market has done nothing to promote certainty, nor competition.

Watch this space.

ULEVs - Good News/Bad News

This report from Edie trumpets a rise in ULEV registrations in the UK of 1864% over 5 years. All well and good but what really matters is the absolute number of vehicles on the road. That apparently spectacular increase is actually from 2129 to almost 100000. Let's put that into context. There are approximately 35M registered road vehicles in the UK. So that 100000 represents less 0.3% of all road vehicles. We all know that "mighty oaks from little acorns grow" so any increase in ULEV registrations must be welcomed. There is, however, a long way to go.

Plastic sinking in the Sea

This paper makes disturbing reading. Various surveys have found that the enormous amounts of plastic found floating in the sea actually constitute much less than expected. Now there is evidence that larvaceans take in bits of plastic and excrete them in pellets dense enough to sink to the sea floor.

The big question is: do they just drop all the way down and lie there; or do fish ingest them as they are sinking; or perhaps sea bed animals eat them? If either of these occurs it means that we could also be eating them. (I rather like crab!).

Watch this space!

Brexit and My MP - Part 19

Oh dear! Another damp squib.

Return of PDF Copies of Birth & Death Certificates

I've just paid £9.25 for a copy certificate recording my grandfather's birth. Following this announcement I could have paid for a PDF version for £6. In this case I don't mind having paid the extra - he is a direct ancestor after all. However, for details of cousins/uncles/aunts/hangers-on a reduction of 35% is most welcome.

Time to Change Address?

Our house is called Barnett Cottage.

Just around the corner there is No 1 Barnett Cottages.

There is also Barnett House.

All three properties glory in the same post code. Consequently delivery personnel, using sat navs, often make deliveries to the wrong establishment.

No-one wishes to go through the hassle of renaming their homes. Indeed, I, for one, rather like the historical continuity - our property was certainly known by its current name from before the 1911 census. (Mind you, Barnett Cottages are explicit in the 1901 census whereas in that listing there's no name attached to our house so maybe Barnett Cottages have precedence. Then again, census enumerators were not necessarily diligent in their recording of house names and/or numbers).

Now, many sat navs have the facility to use GPS coordinates which are far more accurate that post codes. Is it time that we all added GPS coordinates to our addresses?

Brexit and my MP - Part 18

Still no response to my previous communication! (All other parts of this saga are available elsewhere in this blog.)

Dear Mrs Milton,

In July of this year I wrote to you deploring the fact that no formal impact assessment had been undertaken by the Government on the consequences of the proposed departure of the UK from Euratom.

Now, David Jones MP, Minister of State for Exiting the EU, has confirmed that impact studies have been undertaken for a wide range sectors of the UK economy. Unfortunately these studies have not been published.

How is it possible for Parliament to hold the Government to account without sight of these studies? How is it possible for the public to judge the consequences of Brexit with this information being kept under wraps?

I urge you to support the initiative instigated by David Lammy MP and Seema Malhotra MP to have these assessments placed in the public domain without delay. As my representative in Parliament you will be taking decisions on my behalf in the continuing Brexit process. I would like to be assured that you are doing so with the fullest possible knowledge of all its implications. Furthermore, I would like to understand the likely future for this country. How else may I plan for my own future?

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Coffee Cups - A Small Step For Man

There has been a small (and I mean small) move in the right direction with respect to disposable coffee cups. A joint deal has been agreed between major players in an attempt to accelerate recyling. This will see the roll-out of 400 recycling points in the UK. Hmm, that's only about 4 per county! Still, it's better than nothing and may help to increase the number recycled which currently stands at fewer than 1%.

The elephant in the room is the need for education and attitude change in the population at large. This, I suspect, will only come when it is made easy to recycle, which means having thousands of recycling points because, by their very nature, these cups are used "on the go". Big question: "Who will fund such a move?"

Over to the retailers.


(See other coffee cup related posts elsewhere in this blog)

Costa Coffee Beats Stella Artois in Wonersh Litter Challenge!

We held the latest of our biennial village litter picks recently. The most prevalent items gathered were Costa Coffee paper cups easily pushing the previous winners, Stella Artois beer cans, into second place. The items had clearly been flung from passing traffic. Both organisations need to think about how to educate their customers into more social behaviour.

Last quarter nearly 30% renewables generation

The slope of this chart is encouraging - but, as the caption says, there's still some way to go yet.

MPs Need to Follow their Code of Conduct

It is commonly acknowledged that the Brexit referendum took place with the majority of British electors at best poorly understanding the issues and consequences. The conduct of the referendum, its outcome, the botched responses and the subsequent divisive nature of the ongoing arguments all illustrate how referenda represent a dangerous form of political decision making, and why we have a representative democracy.

In principle, we should be led by those who have greater time and expertise than Joe Public to debate the issues of the day and to make decisions on behalf of society and for its better interests. It is sad to observe that all too often MPs vote to support their own prejudices, or those of their electorate, and do not consider the wider interests of the country.

This approach, coupled with the influence of the news media and the vast resources available to vested interests has resulted in a body politic which is anything but democratic.

The following is taken from the House of Commons Code of Conduct:

6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

How can we persuade our MPs to actually do this?

Brexit and My MP - Part 17

29 September 2017

Dear Mrs Milton,

I am appending, post script, the text of an email I received today from the UK Government Petitions Team, although the contents were actually authored by DExEU.

I read this email with mounting sensations of anger and dismay, in equal proportions.

Firstly, the hectoring tone of the response may, at best, be described as unpleasant. In fact, I find it dictatorial and quite unseemly.

Secondly it states that the British people voted to leave the EU. At the risk of being repetitive 37% of the electorate advised the Government that they believed the UK should leave the EU. Sixty three percent did not.

Thirdly it claims that the vote provided a mandate for Brexit. Please would you explain how an advisory referendum produces a mandate?

Fourthly the response argues that the recent general election essentially provided that mandate because the two major parties supported Brexit in their manifestos and those parties were supported by a majority of voters. Whilst technically that is true it is also manifestly evident that the election was about more than Brexit, and that many voters cast their votes with motives other than supporting the UK’s departure.

Fifthly, it is commonly acknowledged that the referendum vote was taken with the majority of voters ignorant of the consequences of Brexit. When an agreement is reached with the 27 other EU members it would appear utterly illogical to then deny the British people the opportunity to accept, or otherwise, that agreement.

Finally, to limit the decision to a choice between accepting the agreement or leaving with no agreement flies in the face of common sense. Ours is a representative democracy and it is perfectly possible for our representatives to take the view that (a) the proposed agreement is unacceptable and that (b) remaining in the EU would be less damaging to the future of the UK that leaving with no agreement. It is totally undemocratic to deny our representatives (i.e. you) the opportunity to express that view and to seek to have it enacted.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

(The who sorry saga of Brexit and my MP is spread across recent months of this blog)

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal”.

Government responded:

On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum.

The decision to hold the referendum was supported by a clear majority in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.

There must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess the British people’s decision to leave the European Union, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach which respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.

Parliament passed an Act of Parliament with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn - for the simple reason that people voted to leave, and the Government is determined to see through that instruction.

Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the final agreement reached with the EU before it is concluded. This will be a meaningful vote which will give MPs the choice to either accept the final agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before.

Department for Exiting the European Union

Stinking Missive from DExEU

I am too angry to formulate a coherent response at the moment. This just STINKS:



Dear Richard Bawden,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal”.

Government responded:

On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum.

The decision to hold the referendum was supported by a clear majority in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.

 There must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess the British people’s decision to leave the European Union, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach which respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.

Parliament passed an Act of Parliament with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn - for the simple reason that people voted to leave, and the Government is determined to see through that instruction.
Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the final agreement reached with the EU before it is concluded. This will be a meaningful vote which will give MPs the choice to either accept the final agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before.

Department for Exiting the European Union

Coffee Cups, Brexit, and My MP

It's a weird world.

Why do my posts on the ongoing coffee cup recycling saga attract vastly more views that those detailing the pathetic response of my MP to what is arguably the greatest short term existential threat to the UK - i.e. Brexit?

Offshore CfDs

A recent article posted on Mondaq discussing recent CfD auction results could be argued to be somewhat hysterical. However, there's a paragraph in the middle posing a number of questions which, if you unwind them a little, pose one or two interesting crumbs of food for thought:-



Clearly, the cost of offshore wind power presents a challenge for other technologies in Pot 2 (and gas). They have no prospect of competing with offshore wind. The results present Government with many questions. Should offshore wind become a Pot 1 technology, to compete against onshore wind and solar? This could potentially enable consumers to earn a return (ie a reduction on the cost of electricity) for offering price stability to developers by awarding CfDs at below the market price. Should the focus be on offshore wind to the exclusion of all else? Where does it leave nuclear? Where does it leave gas? Does it represent an opportunity to use budget to support potentially complementary technologies, such as island wind (wind in Shetland for instance is relatively uncorrelated to wind off East Anglia) or tidal technologies. And finally, if the price of offshore wind is £57.50, could onshore wind be used, not just to cut subsidy, but to cut the cost of electricity to consumers?

Immigration is not a Zero Sum Game

Listen to the opponents of immigration and you find that their arguments are couched in terms of it being a zero sum game. "Immigrants are taking our jobs". "Immigrants are a drain on our society". Refugees and asylum seekers receive the worst of it being labelled "bogus" or associated with terrorism and disease. At worst these people are treated in dehumanising, unfair and inhumane ways.

The truth is that very rarely is it a zero sum game. However, this belief that there are finite resources and finite opportunities appears to be deeply ingrained and may be blamed for the rise of the likes of UKIP and for the outcome of the Brexit referendum.

How do we change these attitudes? It is certainly not easy - just telling people that immigrants are not taking vital resources appears simply to backfire in many cases, reinforcing deeply embedded antipathy. (After all, the people have "had enough of experts", haven't they?).

Immigration and asylum-seeking are not going away so we need to find some means of lessening these tensions. Countries that integrate immigrants successfully are less likely to be subject to inter-group tension (stating the bleedin' obvious, that) and much more likely to reap the benefits. Slamming shut the door ain't going to work.

Neonatal Gene Sequencing - Brave New World?

Both my daughters-in-law are currently pregnant and going through the routine scans etc. that are in the gift of the NHS. There's nothing unusual in that. However, across the Atlantic something unusual is happening.

In Boston the BabySeq Project is under way in which 240 healthy babies and 240 babies born in intensive care will have their whole genomes sequenced. The team undertaking the research will be looking for a series of protein-coding genes that are strongly associated with diseases that begin in childhood and also for mutations linked to diseases that occur in later life.

It is possible that some physical interventions, or enhanced check-ups, could follow this analysis. And all the subjects will be monitored for at least five years.

Perhaps all of the above is not particularly controversial and the approach being taken by the investigating team certainly appears to be well thought through and careful. But it does start to open up a whole gamut of ethical questions.

The babies have not given their consent to sequencing. To what extent should parents then be able to agree to medical interventions based on this new knowledge? When the child reaches adulthood who will own the data? Will the subject be able to ask for it to be destroyed?

And looking further ahead - it will become easier for pre-natal testing to be done. What decisions may that prompt? What are the ethics of gene therapy at this stage?

We face a brave new world here. The Boston trial is a good first step but we must be vigilant that future moves are equally well founded.

Antisocial Parking

What is it with these people?

More on Scrappage and EVs

It's London bus time - announcements rolling in one after another.

We have a long-range Nissan EV announced.

Jaguar Land Rover are going fully EV or hybrid by 2020.

And Uber are aiming to transition all drivers to EVs by 2022.

Things are really hotting up. Perhaps it's time to cash in those oil and gas company shares you own before there's a nasty crash. And ask your pension fund to do the same!

More car makers pile onto diesel scrappage bandwagon

This from Edie details schemes from VW, Nissan and Toyota. It would appear that diesel scrappage schemes have some legs in the market and that no-one wants to miss out on the associated new sales. As with previously announced schemes it is essentially Euro 1 to 4 vehicles that are being targetted (Looks as though I'll be running my Euro 5 car for some time yet!).

As a number of the replacement options are all electric or hybrids this places more pressure on the greening of the electricity supply sector - an area where successive governments have what can at best be described as a patchy record.

Brexit and my MP - Part 16

Another pathetic response:

Dear Richard

 

Many thanks for getting in touch with me about the European Union Withdrawal Bill.

I appreciate your concerns about the programme motion for the Withdrawal Bill and it is an issue that is not uncommonly raised when we examine legislation.

However, I am satisfied that there will be sufficient time. Parliament has already debated many of the issues around Brexit and I have no doubt that this will continue.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and please do let me know if you feel there is ever anything I can do to help.

 

My best wishes,
Anne

 

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, Minister for Women

 

Tel: 020 7219 8392/0017

   

Brexit and My MP - Part 15

8 September 2017

Dear Mrs Milton,

 

 

I am writing to you as a constituent to ask you to vote against the Programme Motion for the Withdrawal Bill on Monday evening.

It appears to me that the proposed timetable for this Bill is one of unseemly haste. This is one of the most important bills in British parliamentary history and I am concerned that eight days does not provide you and your fellow elected representatives sufficient time to debate, scrutinise and amend such a significant piece of legislation. I note that previous debates on European treaties have been allocated far more time in Parliament.

A big part of the Leave campaign was based on parliamentary sovereignty but the timetable makes it look very much as though the Government is trying to avoid democratic scrutiny and railroad this bill through the House of Commons.

As my elected representative, I am urging you to vote against the Programme Motion to ensure that you get the opportunity to properly examine the EU Withdrawal Bill.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Richard Bawden

Diesel Scrappage - Confused Messages?

There continues to be much chatter about diesel car scrappage schemes and, indeed, the launch of various bespoke initiatives by several manufacturers. What does this all mean and how is the proverbial "man in the street" likely to react.

The current round of angst is mainly around NOx emissions from diesel engines, coupled in varying degrees to particulate production. These pollutants are produced in greater quantities by diesel engines than by their petrol equivalents; and some 40% of the cars on the UK's roads are diesel powered following the successful push to promote these vehicles over petrol ones because of their better CO2 emission characteristics.

The currently proposed schemes mostly target Euro 1 to Euro 4 standard cars - some explicitly, some implicitly through defining a registration date cut off. Most schemes are diesel only, although the recently announced Ford one is for petrol engines as well. In some cases the new purchase has a threshold CO2 emissions limit, but this doesn't appear to be the case universally. Electric vehicles would seem to be another thing altogether (the still steep development curve and the problem of how the electricity is generated in the first place being two rather large elephants in that particular room). And let's not beat around the bush - new cars sales are on the wane so manufacturers will want to find ways of promoting their uptake. A scrappage scheme is not a bad "vehicle" to achieve this.

This could all be a tad confusing to the average punter. Should HMG be stepping in and running a national scheme? This has the potential of levelling the playing field but possibly on a "lowest common denominator" basis. Also I suspect that at Treasury level there is little appetite for such public expenditure.

I rather think that while manufacturers are taking a lead, however confusingly, HMG will be content to let them run ahead. There may be some tinkering with vehicle excise duty - but here HMG will be wary of angering those drivers who purchased Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesel models in good faith because of their CO2 emission characteristics.

Considering pollution generally all schemes would appear to be beneficial as far as NOx and particulates are concerned. CO emission may rise - the limits on petrol cars are twice those on diesel ones. For CO2? Probably beneficial again, but this is one area where the waters do seem really muddy and if there is one thing the manufacturers could do that is to incentivise CO2 reduction as an adjunct to other benefits in their schemes.

Earth Overshoot Day

I dislike the concept of "natural resource budgets" and their ilk which is why I didn't post this link about Earth Overshoot Day when it first appeared. However, the underlying message is an important one - we are increasingly denuding the world of resources that really should  be there for our children, grandchildren and their descendants. Frankly it is shameful that in this country we consume, on the basis used in the article, at 3 times a sustainable level.

Brexit and my MP - Part 14

My follow up:

21 August 2017

Dear Mrs Milton,

Thank you for your letter of 14 August 2017 in response to my email of 20 July 2017. In it you state “As I understand, leaving Euratom is a result of the decision to leave the European Union as they are uniquely legally joined”. Actually, Euratom and the European Union are legally quite distinct organisations although the former does use the same institutions as the EU including the ECJ. This is precisely why I wrote to you in the first place as, with a little compromise, it seems to me that the UK could retain its membership of Euratom avoiding the risks inherent in leaving. At the very least a proper risk/reward analysis should have been undertaken, something the Government failed to do as I pointed out in my original communication. I have not seen a reasoned explanation for the Government’s decision to leave but I presume that the main drivers are the Tory right’s pathological dislike of the ECJ and the continued free movement of nuclear specialists which ongoing membership would require.

You allude to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill as a replacement vehicle for continued safety standards and, indeed, the Bill does appear to address certain functions of Euratom (ensuring that civil nuclear material is not diverted from its intended use, for instance). However, it does not address other functions such as access to expertise and capital.

Among the issues you did not address in your letter are:

       1) Access to nuclear fuel. Approximately 20% of the UK’s electricity is generated in nuclear power stations, and there are plans for new stations (including Hinkley Point C, currently under construction) that will require fuelling. The UK has no indigenous sources of nuclear fuel, relying on imports especially from the eight countries with which Euratom has cooperation agreements and which control over 70% of the world’s uranium supplies. These arrangements would fall away on the UK’s departure from Euratom and would have to be replaced – no small requirement.

       2) Supply of medical isotopes. The UK has no reactor producing medical isotopes; these have to be imported with the Euratom Supply Agency currently having oversight of the market. Many of these isotopes have short half-lives making the proper functioning of supply chains time critical. Without the support of Euratom the UK is at risk of poorer, less controlled supply. I am sure that with your medical background this is something that you would not wish to see happen.     

      3) There are some 126 tonnes of plutonium stored at Sellafield owned and controlled by the Euratom Supply Agency. What happens to this after the UK leaves?

One is tempted to revert to the old adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Brexit and my MP - Part 13

The latest load of tosh:

Sea-borne Plastics

Two articles have passed before my eyes recently that, taken together, present a worrying picture.

The first details the incredible build up of rubbish, most of it plastic, on Henderson Island, an uninhabited piece of land just 5 km wide located between Australia and South America. A recent expedition there found some 38M items of rubbish, in all weighing approximately 18 tonnes. On the beaches were an average of 239 items of junk per square metre. Much of this material is decades old attesting to the generally slow degradation of plastic.

The other article argues that there is actually much less plastic in the ocean than expected. The authors also note that the total amount in the waters appears to have plateaued, a situation that is difficult to explain by purely physical processes. They go on to proposed that this situation may be the result in an increase in the population of microbes with the ability to biodegrade plastic. (There is a counter argument that plastic is simply sinking to the sea bed as colonising organisms weigh it down). Even if the degradation hypothesis is correct it may still not be good news - all that may be happening is that the potentially harmful additives that are contained within many plastic are being released into the environment at an ever increasing pace.

So - there is a huge amount of junk floating around out there; and there is an even greater quantity of "missing" junk from which unpleasant chemicals may be being released. It's time to reinvigorate the old mantra - "reduce, reuse, recycle".

And Yet Another!

Coffee Cups vs Brexit?

Why is it that my posts on recycling coffee cups attract far higher traffic than anything I write in my ongoing series "Brexit and my MP"?

More Anti-social Parking

Brexit and my MP: Part 12

Time to restart my hitherto fruitless correspondence with my MP:

Dear Mrs Milton,

In my letter to you of 3 March 2017 I pointed out that on 23 June 2016 most voters will have been ignorant of the consequences of their vote on the UK's membership of Euratom. You chose to make no response to my comment.

Now I am given to understand that the Government failed to undertake a formal impact assessment of its decision to quit Euratom prior to triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. I regard this as an utter dereliction of duty. That voters should cast their votes in a state of ignorance is an unfortunate consequence of our democratic processes. For ministers, who should act in the best interests of the country, to take decisions without a full understanding of their consequences is reckless.

I am also deeply concerned that this is symptomatic of the Government's approach to the entire Brexit process, with recent press reports of the situation doing nothing to alleviate such concerns. What evidence are you able to provide to reassure me that ministers and negotiators fully appreciate the risks inherent in Brexit and the potential consequences?

Yours sincerely

Coffee Cups, Again!

This announcement from Veolia is encouraging.

However, I'm not sure all the survey findings actually stack up. And I'd still like to find a way of preventing all those irresponsible motorists (and their passengers) who hurl their cups onto the verges and into the hedgerows around our village.


Grrr!

And Another One

Must be something in the water.

Name and Shame

Guideline Coaches - anti-social or what?

Note added 24 June 2017. I emailed Guidline about this on the day. Have I had an response? Have I hell!

Arctic Sea Ice - Or Not

These stats courtesy of New Scientist a couple of months ago:-


3sqm of Arctic sea ice disappear for ever 1 tonne of CO2 emitted.

a typical US car emits 1 tonne CO2 per 4000 km.

1 tonne of CO2 is emitted for each seat on a return flight from London to San Francisco.

the average European causes the emission of 7 tonnes of CO2 each year (for Americans double that plus!).

globally we emit 35 billion tonnes of CO2 each year.

at these rate the Arctic summer ice sheet WILL BE GONE by 2046.




Food for thought.

Feeding the Future

My post of yesterday on water leakage is a reminder that water is a key resource in our food supply. I recently came across some very interesting (and worrying) statistics:


Today, 800 million people go hungry.
By 2050 the world's population may have reached 10 billion.
About 30% of all our food ends up rotting on farms or in landfill.
In the UK households waste 20% of groceries simply because of confusion over labels ("best before" does not mean "do not eat after").
It takes over 30 times a much water to produce 1kg of beef as it does to produce the same weight of potatoes.
It takes 25kg of feed to produce 1kg of beef but just 2kg for 1kg of crickets. Let's eat more crickets.
There are some 50,000 edible plants in the world but just 3 (wheat, maize, rice) account for 60% of the world's calorie intake.
There are over 100,000 species of algae but we cultivate just 20 for food.
Vertical farming can use 95% less water than conventional cultivation.



Food for thought.