'A Citizens Manifesto' - Ten Steps To A Better Britain

The Palace Of Westminster
As A Parliament Or As A Museum?
'A Citizens Manifesto'
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/election2010.htm
Why Not Make Your Own Election Leaflet
And Give Your Local Candidates 'Ten Steps To A Better Britain'?

"Both the rectangular architecture of the Commons and the first past the post electoral system were designed for a tribal system of politics, such as we enjoyed in the immediate postwar era, when one in 11 of us belonged to a party. Now only one in 88 of us does. The expenses crisis showed how remote Parliament has become from those who elect it, with the worst excesses being committed by MPs in safe seats where voters are, in effect, disfranchised. But even before the expenses crisis, voters had begun to rebel against tribal politics. That rebellion may reach its culmination next month, in which we could see the greatest challenge to our traditional constitution since the battle over 'peers versus the people' that marked the two general elections of 1910, 100 years ago."
Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government, Oxford University, and author of The New British Constitution
The era of two tribes is over, whoever wins
London Times, 16 April 2010

"An IoS poll shows 77 per cent of Britons want our forces to come home and a majority believe our presence makes UK streets less safe from terrorist attack. Yet all three parties are ducking this most critical issue.... The Lib Dem defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, yesterday conceded that anti-war voters have few choices. 'If they are against the whole principle of being involved [in Afghanistan], they'll struggle to find anyone putting that case,' he said."
Afghanistan: A conspiracy of silence
Independent On Sunday, 18 April 2010

'The Old Politics Is Dead - But Where Is The New?'
The Need For A 'Whole New Agenda Of Policies'

"All the political parties have now launched or previewed their manifestos. Their leaders have given dozens of interviews and speeches. The beancounters have done their assessments, confirming what everybody knew in the first place — that none of the policies and promises come close to adding up.... But why is this incoherence so much more troubling in this election than before?.... One question [in earlier elections] was ... enough to establish almost everyone’s political position on almost every issue: do you want less government and more market, or vice versa? People who wanted less government would vote Tory and those who wanted more would vote Labour or Lib Dem.... The Tories are the party of less government and more market; but what do they say when the market, even more than the government, has proved ruinously incompetent, wasteful and corrupt?.... the market is now as suspect and unpopular in voters’ minds as government. .... In short, the almost Manichean dualism between government and markets that has defined British politics at least since the Thatcher era — and arguably since the rise of Labour in the 1920s — no longer makes sense. What Britain will need in the next five years is not less government and more market or vice versa, but a whole new agenda of policies..."
Anatole Kaletsky: The Old Politics Is Dead - But Where Is The New?
London Times, 14 April 2010

"Further pledges to cut government waste have been made but the parties have not said which budgets would be cut to achieve those savings. The Conservatives have the largest hole in their plans over the next parliament because they are more ambitious about deficit reduction and have to find Ł6bn extra spending cuts to partially reverse Labour’s planned national insurance rise.... Labour’s proposals are also challenging because its promise to protect hospitals, schools and the police from cuts implies spending reductions elsewhere of more than 20 per cent. Launching the Lib Dem manifesto, Vince Cable, the party’s Treasury spokesman, called the budget deficit 'the elephant in the room'. 'We don’t think you can banish it, you have to confront it – and I guess I’m the elephant man,' he said. However, the Lib Dems have also failed to set out the Ł30bn of cuts that is needed to bring the Ł167bn deficit under control. Business warned that politicians were in danger of creating unrealistic expectations among voters ..."
Ł30bn hole in party election pledges
Financial Times, 14 April 2010

"The current round of political billboard posters may all have different slogans but the rationale is always the same: people aren’t bright or interested enough genuinely to weigh up the difference in party policies so we’ll give them their information in a form that’s decidedly idiot-friendly. There are detailed manifestos out there somewhere — I’m not sure where — but these posters are more like children’s books: big pictures and not too many words.... I don’t like being patronised by silly posters but nor do I want to do a three-year degree in, say, business studies to develop a more informed opinion. Besides, the credit crunch showed us how much financial experts really know.... All we want are a few simple soundbites that we can hang our fragile opinions on — just enough to give us a sense of joining in.
Frank Skinner: If you want to fool us, don’t treat us like idiots
London Times, 9 April 2010

Why You Might Want To Make Your Own Citizens Manifesto Election Leaflet

The simple 'Citizens Manifesto' election leaflet provided below raises the question 'Parliament or Museum?' Here's why you might like to produce something similar yourself.

The current British general election has been called "the most important in a generation" by opposition leader David Cameron. And yes, 'it's the economy stupid'. However, there's little doubt that much of the electorate have been in a quandary as the country heads for polling day on 6 May. A YouGov poll taken 9/10 April for the Sunday Times found that only 32% felt that any of the main parties "are likely to give Britain the new start it really needs".

So dire is the situation that David Cameron has even claimed that "politicians have been treating the public like mugs for about 40 years, pretending that we the politicians have all the answers.”

And clearly they don't - as all three main parties' manifesto positions on the economy demonstrate.

The Lib Dems are the only party of the big three to have provided some detailed figures for their public finance proposals in their manifesto. But, according to the Financial Times, all three parties have a Ł30 billion hole in their stated plans which "will have to be plugged with [currently unspecified] huge tax rises or spending cuts after the election".

In line with this the Lib Dem's own manifesto acknowledges (p 97-99) that they will be identifying additional areas for public spending cuts only after the election, and if these prove insufficient, introducing currently unspecified tax rises as "a last resort".

So what people vote for (or think they are voting for) in these circumstances is not what they will eventually get (or at least the full extent of it), as far as the economy and the three main parties are concerned. The actuality will not be revealed until after the election.

Beyond the economy, however, what makes things even more tricky for voters, is that the three main parties are increasingly converging on more or less the same middle ground. Here the differences are largely based on nuance. As a result, for many voters, there is a "now what do we do?" feel to the election.

Nonetheless, at least one notionally encouraging thing to come out of the current process is a stated greater commitment (to varying degrees) from all three main parties to giving citizens a greater say in how things are run in the future. But if that's the case, why should people wait for the results of the election before getting more involved?

The main parties say they want to empower people. So why not publish your own one page manifesto in response? Right now. And then give it to any candidate or canvasser who comes knocking on your door before polling day. This can help to highlight issues which have become overshadowed by the inevitably dominating debate about the economy, even though that central subject is only being dealt with evasively (and particularly so when it comes to its relationship with 'energy security' and the so called 'war on terror').

This kind of stab at pro-active engagement with the election process is unlikely to change the result in your constituency. But it is still a crisp means of making clear to whoever wins what you expect to see from them once they are in Parliament. You will have given them a paper record of it, and much could be up for further negotiation after the election if there is a hung parliament (currently the favourite outcome with bookmakers, with those hoping for a hung parliament rising from 32% to 53% following the first televised leaders debate).

Moreover, there is a special attraction to adopting this type of approach if you are a 'single issue' type voter whose territory is not getting covered amongst the general froth generated by the evasive economic debate.

For example, neither Labour nor the Lib Dems mention the sensitive and hardly minor issue of GM crops and foods in their formally published manifestos (the Tories have said in their manifesto that they will introduce "clear industry liability" provisions on GM. Hopefully that means 'clear', strong, and broad - rather than 'clear', weak, and narrow. But with their longstanding connections to big business the proof of the pudding will be in the eating).

Yet, what could be more important than public policy relating to the basic nature of the food we eat?

Food is the primary basis of our health. And health is the primary basis of our economy. No health, no economy. So safeguarding the fundamental nature of our food is something even more important than maintaining the fundamentals of sound banking. And yet look what happened when bankers started to 'innovate' with the financial fundamentals they were supposedly experts in. Political parties should be as wary of biological derivatives as they are now of financial derivatives, particularly when those who promote them do so on the basis of 'advocacy science'.

Whatever your concerns, set them out briefly (not more than ten bullet points is probably enough) and clearly on a single page. And then ask for a response on your door step, or for one to be emailed later. Try also leaving some copies attached to your door with a note asking canvassers to take one if nobody is in.

The 'Parliament or Museum?' leaflet below is a simple example of the sort of thing that can be produced. If you happen to like it, feel free to make use of it. But otherwise just come up with your own content and style.

If you have received a 'Freepost' envelope during the campaign from one of the parties asking you to send in your views on issues, why not use it to send them your own one page manifesto?

Finally, why not email your friends about this? With the advent of the internet voters now have access to some of the most important election tools used by the parties. There's no reason why this can't be made a two way 'real time' process, and it might end up sowing some seeds for the longer term.

Meanwhile, don't forget the Greens (who may win their first seat), the Scottish Nationalists, and Plaid Cymru. Unlike the main parties, they all unambiguously say no to GM crops, for example (and even UKIP and the BNP appear to be currently opposed, which means that all the parties fielding a large number of candidates, except the main three, are openly against GM food production, although the situation in Northern Ireland is unclear).

nlpwessex.org

"[The televised election debate between Brown, Cameron and Clegg] was, it was agreed in advance, historic. Though in the words of Buffalo Springfield: 'There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.' Why exactly was it historic? Simply because it was the first such debate in British TV-era political history? Or because it might really affect the outcome of the election? Or something else? .... The staging of the debates tells us something that runs completely contrary to conventional wisdom. It tells us that power has moved by one large new increment from the rulers to the ruled, a process that has been going on this country — and other democracies — for decades. The debates are a further triumph of the people over the politicians; something that the politicians sort of know but that the people refuse to see.... The worst aspect of it though, it seems to me, is that we don’t see what’s happening. We, the public, pretend always that we are done to, rather than doing. That we are not responsible. The significance of the debates is that they invite you to meet your new boss. And it’s you."
David Aaronovitch: Last night we saw the new masters in action
London Times, 16 April 2010

So Are You Ready To Play Your Part In Confronting The Biggest Single Force Shaping World Affairs Today
Whose Full Dimensions The Candidates From The Main Parties Don't Want To Mention?

Wall St
"Troubles buffeting the U.S. mortgage market could get worse as resurgent crude oil prices squeeze the finances of already hard-pressed borrowers, analysts say, and that could spell more trouble for Wall Street. The fallout from the subprime mortgage lending industry, which lends to riskier borrowers with spotty credit histories, could even trigger a long-anticipated correction in the U.S. stock market, they said. 'The subprime borrower is the one who would be hurt the most if gas and heating oil prices went up further,' said Jim Awad, chairman of Awad Asset Management in New York. 'The thinking is that if you are going to have a spike in energy prices here, it would hurt the poor consumer who is already at risk.' ........ On Friday, investors pummeled shares of subprime lenders further, with shares of New Century Financial Corp. NEW.N and NovaStar Financial Inc. NFI.N extending declines seen earlier in the week. The sell-off, which came as U.S. crude for April delivery CLc1 rose above $61 a barrel, a 2007 high, sent the S&P Financial index .GSPF to its biggest slide in a month. ....... Until recently oil prices had been declining, creating a cushion for hard-pressed homeowners. "
Subprime woes seen worsening if oil hits borrowers
Reuters, 23 February 2007

BP
"Bankers and the financial sector may have displaced energy from the front pages of the newspapers right now, but Energy Security remains at the top of the global political and economic agenda....The need to balance energy security, jobs and economic development while addressing the problem of climate change all contributed to the challenge politicians faced in Copenhagen. And that challenge means that energy security will dominate politics and policy for the next 12 months and considerably beyond.... Reliable and affordable supplies of hydrocarbon energy were taken for granted through much of the 20th century and laid the foundation for the world’s extraordinary economic progress. When concerns arose, it tended to be at times of war or turbulence, notably in the Middle East, or, closer to home, with industrial action. What’s different now is that energy security has become a defining issue for the 21st century, as one element in a complex energy challenge with strategic, economic and environmental dimensions.... Opening access to a range of potential operators encourages the most efficient solutions, and often involves partnerships that provide new combinations of skills. Iraq is a very good example. BP is teaming up there with CNPC of China and Iraq’s South Oil Company to drive a major investment programme that will nearly triple production from the super-giant Rumaila field. With this and the other agreements concluded with national and international oil companies in the last six months, Iraq has the potential to contribute 10mmb/d to global supplies in the next 10-15 years. That’s a big piece of the additional resource we need....The current debate about Copenhagen and sustainability add new urgency and importance to the broader discussion of energy security. The challenge of creating a low-carbon economy is far from easy, requiring the wholesale re-engineering of the global economy over time."
Tony Hayard, Chief Executive of BP
The Challenge of Energy Security
Speech at London School of Economics, 4 February 2010

What Really Went Wrong In The First Decade Of 21st Century?
Click Here

"The Iraq war was just the first of this century's 'resource wars', in which powerful countries use force to secure valuable commodities, according to the UK government's former chief scientific adviser. Sir David King predicts that with population growth, natural resources dwindling, and seas rising due to climate change, the squeeze on the planet will lead to more conflict. 'Future historians might look back on our particular recent past and see the Iraq war as the first of the conflicts of this kind - the first of the resource wars,' he told an audience of 400 in London as he delivered the British Humanist Association's Darwin Day lecture. '"
UK's ex-science chief predicts century of 'resource' wars
Guardian, 13 February 2009

"We have had nine years of politicians waging wars that were not supported by most people in Britain. The main parties will try to avoid the issue in the election because they all support the unjustified and unwinnable war in Afghanistan. We believe electors considering how to cast their vote on May 6 have a right to know the views of all the candidates on this issue. Please do this now [online using the Stop The War Coalition web site]. Candidates in this election need to be flooded with requests for them to say where they stand on the issue of the war. Only then can the electors make an informed decision when deciding who will get their vote."
Don't let them ignore the war in the election
Stop The War Coalition, 8 April 2010

"Afghanistan is not the only potential route for transiting Central Asian gas while bypassing Russia. Iran is the most ovbious route, but strangely the US is not keen. The other route is through Georgia and Azerbaijan. But Putin has Azerbaijan locked tight against the pipeline..... There is a minimum of 15 trillion - yes trillion - dollars of natural gas in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Since 2005, Russian diplomacy has tied up the contracts for Gazprom. Before that the US had more than a foot in the door, and the US knows that what changed once can and will change again. 15 trillion dollars is worth some strategising. ..... Let me say 15 trillion dollars again. Not to mention the fact that I have been officially briefed that it is the US strategic interest in the region.... In 1986, when I started my first overseas posting in Lagos, the first file on my desk was marked 'West Africa Gas Pipeline'. The WAGP delivered its first gas early this year, 23 years later. .... These are major strategic interests and long term projects. You can believe that the US is in Afghanistan to search for Osama Bin Laden and to back the 'Democratic' Mr Karzai. Or you can believe that this war is about control of resources."
The Sinister Dissembling of Jerome A Paris
Former British Ambassador To Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (Blog), 5 November 2009

"Rising oil prices pose a grave threat to global economic recovery, according to some economists. Thus it was sobering this week to read that the US military has warned the world faces a 'severe energy crunch' and looming oil shortages. According to a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, 'a severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity'. .... More ominously, the military predicts a 'Peak Oil' scenario - where demand outstrips the world's supply capacity - as soon as 2012. 'By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels a day.' Current oil demand is about 86 million barrels a day. The repercussions of Peak Oil have potentially grave consequences both economically and militarily. On the military front the USFC notes that already Chinese 'civilians' are in the Sudan guarding oil pipelines to protect supply, and that this 'could portend a future in which other states intervene in Africa to protect scarce resources. The implications for future conflict are ominous, if energy supplies cannot keep up with demand and should states see the need to militarily secure dwindling energy resources,' the report says. 'While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in the developing and developed worlds. 'Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment."
Oil crunch by 2012, say military experts
The Courier-Mail (Australia), 16 April 2010

'A Citizens Manifesto' - Ten Steps To A Better Britain

palacewestminster6.jpg (20736 bytes)

Reform party funding.
Convert the Palace of Westminster into a museum of pre-21st century life in Britain and symbol of a bygone age.
Move Parliament to a building with a layout more conducive to constructive political exchange - after all, what are we going to do with all the Olympic sites after 2012?
Abolish the disgracefully tribal format of the weekly 'Prime Ministers Questions' - it's easier for the public to respect politicians when they are seen to respect each other.
Strengthen the independence and power of Parliamentary committees to hold government and its agencies to account.
Stop the unnecessary and expensive spread of the 'Big Brother' Surveillance State - even without ID cards, the databases are growing and are being linked to new (forgeable) biometric passports serving as surrogate cards. The problem is the database, not the card.
Ban GM food and instead invest in modern agricultural biotechnologies which are more publicly acceptable and practically effective, such as 'genomics' based plant breeding.
Provide 'Consciousness Based Education' (CBE) for pupil, student, and adult learning, to transform the economic and social well-being of the country, including health and crime.
Deploy 'CBE' in Foreign Policy to dissolve political and religious tensions in the Middle East and other troubled regions to secure a less fearful hate-filled world for all.
Withdraw Britain from the counterproductive NATO (aka 'Need Another Transit-route for Oil-and-gas') alliance, and stop the futile sacrifice of our troops, whose proper role is to defend the country, not make us more enemies - and invest the money saved in creating jobs in renewable technology to make Britain genuinely more energy secure.

"[P]assports from 2011 will have the same things as ID cards.... [they] can certainly scrap the little plastic card which calls itself a British ID card. However, what they can't scrap is the database because that's going to be used to store details of people who have got passports... ten years after 2011 you will have 80% of the population with their details on a database - whatever you call it - and stored in the same way that you would have with ID cards."
BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, 6 May 2009 - 06:32 am

"New microchipped passports designed to be foolproof against identity theft can be cloned and manipulated in minutes and accepted as genuine by the computer software recommended for use at international airports... travellers [will be] vulnerable to identity theft when they surrender their passports at hotels or car rental companies."
Times, 6 August 2008

"Our privacy is being invaded by the world's security services in every second of every day, as a routine matter. Vast quantities of information are collected by commercial enterprises such as Google or Tesco. Against these invasions of our privacy we have little or no protection."
Times, 25 July 2008

More Information
Why The World Needs A Ban On GM Food
www.bangmfood.org
Acceptable Genomics Based Biotechnology For Agriculture
www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/smart-breeding
Consciousness Based Education
www.davidlynchfoundation.org

Download Printable/Emailable Copy Of Citizens Manifesto Leaflet
PDF File - Click Here
Web Page File - Click Here

"The Conservative campaign slogan 'vote blue, go green' is being ignored by many of the party’s general election candidates, according to a survey that found that they were much less likely than rivals to favour rapid expansion of renewable energy. Only 22 per cent of Tory candidates in winnable seats strongly supported Britain’s target — set by the European Union and endorsed by the Conservative leadership — of generating 15 per cent of Britain’s energy from renewable sources by 2020. Labour candidates were more than twice as likely (56 per cent) to express strong support for the target. Almost three quarters (71 per cent) of Liberal Democrat candidates strongly supported the target, according to the survey of 101 election hopefuls from the three main parties."
Green campaign slogan ‘being ignored’ by Conservative candidates
London Times, 16 April 2010

"There is something unavoidably symbolic about the cloud of volcanic ash hanging over Britain. While the leaders’ debate dominated our attention, the Earth provided a timely reminder of how little we are in control of this planet. The eruption of Eyjafjallajökull — relatively small by volcanic standards — has completely stalled the British airline industry. So nature has effortlessly succeeded where man-made attempts have failed. The recent strike by British Airways’ cabin crew did not keep the whole country at home. Even the horrors of 9/11 could not entirely close down the airways. But a volcano has grounded Britain at a stroke. It should not have taken Eyjafjallajökull to articulate the power and significance of nature. This election, only five months after the G20 summit in Copenhagen, should have prompted a serious and captivating debate about the environment. Instead, it has slipped off the political agenda, with none of the three main parties able to capture the debate and make it their own. That is not only a missed opportunity; it is also a grave abdication of responsibility. All three parties bang the environmental drum in their manifestos. The Tory manifesto urges the electorate to 'Vote blue, go green.' Labour promises to create '400,000 new green jobs by 2015'. It is one thing to make environmental promises. But at the leaders’ debate this week — an opportunity to speak straight to the nation — none brought up the environment. It was as though they felt the public had moved on.... The Conservative Party once spoke for free enterprise. The Labour Party was able to represent the rights of workers. As today’s parties fight over increasingly congested political territory, the environment offers a rare opportunity to them all to capture a unique identity.... More superstitious ages would have interpreted the cloud of Eyjafjallajökull in terms of bad omens and ill augurs. Today’s rational voices would laugh at the idea. They would be wrong to do so. The cloud hanging over Britain is indeed an ill omen — of yet another election slipping by without the natural world receiving proper attention."
The Voice of Nature
London Times, 17 April 2010

"The idea that politicians and the people will communicate in a different manner is already being used to galvanise the parties’ efforts for the election. At Labour’s central London headquarters, Douglas Alexander, the party’s campaign co-ordinator, has been hard at work trying to make this 'new relationship' with the grass roots a reality. In an interview with The Sunday Times, Alexander explained how internet techniques learnt from the Obama team were transforming Labour’s election campaign. 'The key message I brought back from the Obama campaign was that new media offer political conversation in a different way,' he said. 'They said, ‘Think about the internet as both a tool of organisation and tool of communication. You have got to use it to lower the barrier to engagement’. In simple terms, use the internet to get your message out to as many people as possible and in a way that requires little effort from them."
The Obama election
Sunday Times, 4 April 2010

"The United States ambassador in Kabul warned his superiors here in November that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan 'is not an adequate strategic partner' and 'continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden,' according to a classified cable that offers a much bleaker accounting of the risks of sending additional American troops to Afghanistan than was previously known. ... On Nov. 6, Mr. Eikenberry wrote: 'President Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner. The proposed counterinsurgency strategy assumes an Afghan political leadership that is both able to take responsibility and to exert sovereignty in the furtherance of our goal — a secure, peaceful, minimally self-sufficient Afghanistan hardened against transnational terrorist groups. Yet Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further,' Mr. Eikenberry wrote. 'They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending ‘war on terror’ and for military bases to use against surrounding powers.'”
U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Worries on Afghan Plans
New York Times, 25 January 2010

The Election Is About 'Business As Usual'
Not Honest Political Discourse With The Electorate

"In my diplomatic career, I spent a great deal of time assessing the democratic merit of elections in various countries abroad. That gives me a peculiar perspective in looking at elections in the UK, and wondering what a foreign observer would make of them. I can do this also with the insight of having twice run as an independent parliamentary candidate.... in December's parliamentary elections in Uzbekistan, it was the lack of real choice between five official parties, all supporting President Karimov's programme, on which the OSCE focused its criticism. How different is the UK, really? For example, I want to see an immediate start to withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan; I am increasingly sceptical of the EU; and I do not want to see a replacement for the vastly expensive Trident nuclear missile system. On each one of those major policy points, I am in agreement with at least 40% of the UK population, but on none of those points is my view represented by any of the three major political parties. And remember, only those three major political parties will be represented in the televised leaders' debates that will play such a key part in the election. Those debates will take place between three representatives of a professional political class whose ideological differences do not span a single colour of the wider political spectrum. Voters in Wales and Scotland are luckier, but for most people, there is little really meaningful choice available. The Lib Dems are the nearest most people have to a viable alternative. At the last election under Charles Kennedy, they reflected public opinion in opposing the Iraq war, but under Nick Clegg they have become less radical than at any point in my lifetime. The media limitation of debate to a narrow establishment consensus is not merely a problem at the national level. When I was a candidate in both Norwich North and Blackburn, the BBC broadcast candidates' debates, but on each occasion I was not allowed to take part – even though I was a candidate – because the BBC was terrified their audience might hear something interesting. The Electoral Commission specifically recommends that all candidates be invited to take part in all hustings and candidates' debates – but the Electoral Commission is a paper tiger with no powers of enforcement..... So, there we have British elections today: an unfair electoral system, censorship of candidates' electoral addresses, little real political choice for voters, widespread postal ballot-rigging and elections administered by partisan council officials in a corrupt political climate.... So are British elections still free and fair? If this were a foreign election I was observing, I have no doubt that my answer would be no."
Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, former independent candidate, and now hesitant Liberal Democrat campaigner
British democracy: no better than Uzbekistan's
Guardian (Comment Is Free), 8 April 2010

"The proposal to change the electoral system and to introduce new rules at Westminster are both responses to the increasing pluralism of British society — a pluralism hardly reflected in the procedures of the House of Commons, which relate to an era that has long passed away. In 1951, 97 per cent of us who voted supported Labour or Conservative; in 2005, only 69 per cent of us did, while 10 per cent of us refused to vote for any of the three leading parties — Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats — a postwar record. In the European Parliament elections last year, the first test of electoral opinion after the expenses scandal, only 60 per cent of us voted for the three main parties. Opinion polls suggest that at present around one eighth of us will support parties other than the big three. That one eighth was not represented in yesterday’s leaders’ debate, and is unlikely to be effectively represented in the House of Commons unless there is a hung Parliament."
Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government, Oxford University, and author of The New British Constitution
The era of two tribes is over, whoever wins
London Times, 16 April 2010

"Last December Alistair Darling, the chancellor, announced in his pre-budget report that he would raise National Insurance (NI) by an additional 0.5% for both employers and employees from April 2011. In his April 2009 budget he had already announced plans to increase it by 0.5%. The combined 1% rise would bring in about Ł8 billion of extra tax.... [The Tories] propose cancelling most of the planned NI rise, at a cost of Ł5.6 billion.....By abandoning one of Labour’s proposed deficit-cutting tax rises, and saying they will make up the difference with efficiency savings, the Conservatives have deferred tough talk until after the election."
Is the rise in National Insurance really a tax on jobs?
Sunday Times, 11 April 2010

"Speaking to The Times after Nick Clegg’s triumph in the first leaders’ debate on Thursday night.... [former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke] explained that the reason the Conservatives had failed to reveal how much they would cut public spending was because the party did not yet know.... He added: 'I am advising politicians: don’t put figures on it, for God’s sake. You will get hopelessly bogged down. You will make the country ungovernable.' Spending cuts form the battle line in the election. The Tories have promised to cut Ł6 billion in the current financial year from efficiency savings. Labour says that to start cuts this year would risk damaging the recovery. All three parties have warned that the cuts needed from next year for the following three years will be the toughest for 20 years."
Kenneth Clarke says hung Parliament would hit economy
London Times, 17 April 2010

"Let’s start with the honesty pitch. The Lib Dems have claimed to be telling it straighter on the deficit than anyone else. And indeed their manifesto contains welcome detail on things they would be prepared to scrap, including the Eurofighter and some tax credits, and a refusal to follow the other parties in protecting spending on health. The problem with the honesty pitch, though, is that you cannot afford to exaggerate. The Lib Dem plan seems to rely on wild overestimates of possible savings from scrapping Trident and clamping down on tax avoidance. They have also decided to put a Ł17 billion tax cut at the heart of their policy at the same time as arguing that the public finances are in a woeful state. The verdict of the Institute for Fiscal Studies is that the Lib Dem plans are actually no more ambitious than Labour’s in tackling the deficit. All three parties have failed to account for Ł30 billion of what is needed to bring the Ł176 billion deficit under control, says the IFS, with the Lib Dems relying less on spending cuts than Labour and Labour less than Conservatives. Which is all rather disillusioning."
Voting Lib Dem would be a vote for chaos
London Times, 17 April 2010

"After the Liberal Democrat surge in the polls over the weekend, the general election is wide open and the hung parliament this column has been discussing since last autumn appears the most likely prospect. It is, therefore, time to discuss the economic strategy of the Lib Dems. To do this, I spent two hours on Saturday with Vince Cable, the party’s economics spokesman. My interview confirmed that the Lib Dems' promises do not, strictly speaking, 'add up' any more than those of the other parties. But it also revealed a coherent approach to government and a recognition of some of the problems in policy detail that came as an agreeable surprise. Starting with the budgetary arithmetic, which Mr Cable describes as the 'elephant in the room' that other parties have been ignoring, the Lib Dems are more convincing than the Tories because they identify specific tax changes and cuts in public spending well beyond those announced in successive Labour Budgets. Even more bravely, and wisely, the Lib Dems have refused to 'ring-fence' popular programmes, such as health and education, which the other parties have promised to 'protect'. By recognising that schools and hospitals are as likely to be capable of improving their efficiency as any other parts of government, the Lib Dems would spread the burden more broadly than the other parties, thereby avoiding, at least in theory, some of the much deeper cuts in 'unprotected' programmes, especially capital spending, needed by Labour and the Tories to hit their fiscal targets. Despite this boldness, however, the Lib Dem numbers do not fully add up. They have identified spending cuts of Ł10 billion annually from 2012 onwards, with the biggest contribution coming from a cash limit of Ł400 a year on public sector pay increases and the abolition of child tax credits for well-off families. Additional large savings would come from abolishing various regional, health and education quangos, reducing the prison population and abandoning the Eurofighter project. On this last point, Mr Cable says he does not believe claims that contract penalties in scrapping the Eurofighter programme would exceed potential savings, calling this claim a 'rumour' spread by the contractor, BAE Systems, for 'totally self-interested' reasons. But even with all these controversial savings, Mr Cable concedes that many more tough decisions, for example on public sector pensions, will have to be taken in the next parliament, because most of the savings assumed in the Labour Budgets, used by the all parties as a baseline, have not yet been identified. The tax proposals — essentially, a Ł17 billion income tax cut for low-income workers, offset by an equally large increase in taxes on banks and on the pensions, capital gains and homes of the relatively rich — would amount to the biggest fiscal reform in Britain since the 1980s. But this huge shift in the tax burden would not raise any additional revenue. In fact, it would probably result in a net loss for the Treasury, since Ł4.6 billion of new revenues are supposed to come from anti-avoidance measures — a target that 'looks highly speculative', according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies."
Anatole Kaletsky: More than smoke to the Liberal Democrat pipe dream
London Times, 19 April 2010

"Britain’s three main political parties all have a Ł30bn hole in their manifestos that will have to be plugged with huge tax rises or spending cuts after the election, according to Financial Times calculations based on their policy pledges. The scale of the budget gap amounts to a quarter of spending on the National Health Service, half the cost of basic state pension provision or tax increases for the average household of Ł1,100 a year. With all three manifestos published – and none of the parties setting out more than Ł10bn in concrete spending cuts – their tax and spending plans are likely to feature in Thursday night’s first live television debate between the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders. Robert Chote of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that further spending cuts or tax rises were inevitable. 'The skirmishes over tax and spending that we have seen so far during the campaign hardly reflect the scale of the fiscal challenge that will confront whichever party has the misfortune to emerge victorious,' he said....The budgetary arithmetic was already grim before the parties made any tax or spending pledges. Increases in debt interest payments due to record levels of public borrowing and a rising social security bill suggest government departments are likely to need to cut Ł37bn from their budgets by 2013-14 in real terms... Further pledges to cut government waste have been made but the parties have not said which budgets would be cut to achieve those savings. The Conservatives have the largest hole in their plans over the next parliament because they are more ambitious about deficit reduction and have to find Ł6bn extra spending cuts to partially reverse Labour’s planned national insurance rise.... Labour’s proposals are also challenging because its promise to protect hospitals, schools and the police from cuts implies spending reductions elsewhere of more than 20 per cent. Launching the Lib Dem manifesto, Vince Cable, the party’s Treasury spokesman, called the budget deficit 'the elephant in the room'. 'We don’t think you can banish it, you have to confront it – and I guess I’m the elephant man,' he said. However, the Lib Dems have also failed to set out the Ł30bn of cuts that is needed to bring the Ł167bn deficit under control. Business warned that politicians were in danger of creating unrealistic expectations among voters and risked leaving the next government without a sufficiently clear mandate to rebalance the economy.... John Cridland, deputy director general of the CBI, said 'the message on the deficit is in all three of the main manifestos but we’re still looking for the detail'."
Ł30bn hole in party election pledges
Financial Times, 14 April 2010

The Parties Can't Square The Economic Circle
Because The High Price Of Oil Is Essentially A Tax On Global Economic Activity Far More Significant Than Elements Like The Rate Of British 'National Insurance'
'Business As Usual' Is No Longer Possible

'Not In Front Of The Children At An Election'

Even The Haled Vince Cable (A Former Chief Economist At Oil Giant Shell) Isn't Coming Clean About What His Elephant In The Economic Crisis Room Is Underpinned By
None Of This (Below) Is Referred To In The Lib Dem Manifesto Even Though
Earlier Comments From Cable Show He Clearly Understands It

2007
"Troubles buffeting the U.S. mortgage market could get worse as resurgent crude oil prices squeeze the finances of already hard-pressed borrowers, analysts say, and that could spell more trouble for Wall Street. The fallout from the subprime mortgage lending industry, which lends to riskier borrowers with spotty credit histories, could even trigger a long-anticipated correction in the U.S. stock market, they said. 'The subprime borrower is the one who would be hurt the most if gas and heating oil prices went up further,' said Jim Awad, chairman of Awad Asset Management in New York. 'The thinking is that if you are going to have a spike in energy prices here, it would hurt the poor consumer who is already at risk.' ........ On Friday, investors pummeled shares of subprime lenders further, with shares of New Century Financial Corp. NEW.N and NovaStar Financial Inc. NFI.N extending declines seen earlier in the week. The sell-off, which came as U.S. crude for April delivery CLc1 rose above $61 a barrel, a 2007 high, sent the S&P Financial index .GSPF to its biggest slide in a month. ....... Until recently oil prices had been declining, creating a cushion for hard-pressed homeowners. "
Subprime woes seen worsening if oil hits borrowers
Reuters, 23 February 2007

2008
"Normally known for optimistic forecasts of lowering oil prices, Mr. Yergin's firm now says the price could rise to $150 a barrel this year. The world's diminished spare production capacity remains the strongest single catalyst for high prices, Mr. Yergin says. The world's safety cushion -- the amount of readily available oil that could be pumped in a moment of crisis -- is now around two million barrels a day, according to most estimates. That's just 2.3% of daily demand, and nearly all of the safety cushion is in one country, Saudi Arabia. Everyone else is pretty much pumping all they can, which makes the world vulnerable to political or other shocks.... Many analysts now contend that oil prices will fall only following a sharp and sustained drop in demand in the U.S. and other large consuming countries. So far, demand declines in the world's largest oil consumer, the U.S., have been more than made up for by increased consumption in China, Russia, the Middle East and elsewhere. The IEA says Chinese oil demand will rise almost 5% this year and once again play the biggest role in driving global consumption growth."
Some See Oil At $150 a Barrel This Year
Wall St Journal, 7 May 2008

2009
"Energy policymakers should not waste the opportunity that lower oil prices provide to address US supply concerns, two experts told the congressional Joint Economic Committee on May 20. 'The recent rise in oil prices again underscores the present reality of long-term challenges. Even if we see significant short-term gains in global oil production capabilities, if demand from China and elsewhere returns to its previous rate of growth, it will not be too long before the same calculus that produced the oil price spike of 2007-08 will be back to haunt us again,' warned James D. Hamilton, an economics professor at the University of California at San Diego. 'Once global economic growth resumes, so will growth in oil demand. That will once again put energy security, and the relation of energy to economic well-being, back at the top of the agenda. Given the lead times to develop new supplies, policy decisions made today should take into account the likelihood of future cycles, and what they mean to the American economy and to American consumers,' added Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. The two experts returned to testify amid dramatically different conditions from their last appearance, observed Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) who chairs the joint House-Senate committee. 'The most recent estimate from the Energy Information Administration is that regular gasoline prices will average $2.21/gal over this summer's driving season and that diesel fuel prices will be $2.23/gal. That's a far cry from the $4 or more a gallon for gasoline and diesel that drivers faced last summer,' she said in her opening statement. 'When I had the opportunity to testify to the committee almost a year ago, oil prices were on a sharp upward trajectory. Sixteen days after that very timely hearing, they reached an all-time peak of $147.27/bbl. Although some people then were talking about $200, $250 or $500/bbl oil, it seemed clear to use at IHS CERA that a 'break point' was nearing on prices that would market the beginning of a reversal, which we have seen,' said Yergin. When oil's price hit its peak on July 11, it was more than two months before Lehman Bros. Holdings collapsed on Sept. 15, taking the US economy from 'moral hazard' to the much more frightening world of 'systemic risk,' with the threats of credit freezes, economic free fall, and overall breakdown, Yergin said. 'It is well-recognized that the main drive of the deepest recession since the Great Depression was the failure of the US and global debt and credit systems. But the surge in commodity prices, notably oil, was a very significant contributing factor,' Yergin said. High oil prices hit consumers hard, notably those with lower incomes [e.g. sub-prime borrowers], making them reduce spending, he said. They also put an unexpectedly heavy burden on many businesses, both large and small. Most notably, they helped knock the US auto industry 'flat on its back,' reducing consumers' ability to buy cars and leaving Detroit stranded with a product mix that it could not change quickly enough as motorists quickly moved away from what if offered. 'The automobile industry was knocked flat on its back not by the collapse of Lehman Bros. but by the price at the gasoline pump,' Yergin said. Oil prices doubled between June 2007 and June 2008, Hamilton observed. 'In my mind, there is no question that this latest surge in oil prices was an important factor that began in the US in 2007's fourth quarter,' he said. He disputed assertions that financial speculators pushed crude oil prices higher, saying that several other factors contributed to the run-up. 'World oil production decreased slightly between 2005 and 2007. Declining production from mature oil fields in the North Sea and Mexico played a role, as did political instability in Nigeria. Saudi Arabian production, which many analysts had expected to increase to meet rising demand, fell by 850,000 bbl a day between 2005 and 2007. These declines were enough to offset production gains in places such as Angola and Central Asia, with the result that total global oil production dropped slightly,' he said. Meanwhile, demand continued to grow, according to Hamilton. 'World petroleum consumption increase by 5 million b/d during 2004 and 2005, driven largely by a 9.4% increase in global [gross domestic product]. Over the next two years, 2006 and 2007, world GDP grew an additional 10.1% which, in the absence of an increase in the price of oil, would have produced further big increases in quantities consumed,' he said. 'Even with price increases, Chinese oil consumption increased by 870,000 b/d between 2005 and 2007. With no more oil being produced, that meant that residents of the US, Europe, and Japan had to reduce our consumption by a comparable amount. The price of oil needed to rise by whatever it took for us to do so,' Hamilton said. Consumers finally began to respond when gasoline's US average price was more than $4/gal, he said. The abrupt spending changes which resulted can seriously disrupt certain key parts of the economy and seemed to be part of the mechanism by which earlier oil price shocks contributed to previous economic recessions. 'The kinds of economy responses we saw between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2008 were, in fact, quite similar to those observed following previous dramatic oil price increases,' Hamilton indicated..... Policymakers should pursue all options, the two analysts agreed. 'As part of a longer-term view, we need to get beyond the 'either/or' energy debate and take a more ecumenical approach, ensuring that combination of conventional energy, renewables and energy efficiency are all developed with appropriate environmental and climate-change considerations,' Yergin said. Major initiatives in research and development, innovation, and what he called the 'green stimulus' can have significant long-range impacts, he said. 'Indeed, we have never seen anything like the embrace of energy efficiency that is taking place today all across the spectrum,' he said. 'But there is no single answer to the energy needs of our $14 trillion economy. Today, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) supply over 80% of our total energy. Oil by itself is about 40%. That alone makes clear the importance of oil, and the evolution of the oil market, to our economy and security in the decade ahead,' Yergin said."
Experts urge US policymakers to address long-term challenges
Oil & Gas Journal, 21 May 2009

2010
"The world's oil reserves have been exaggerated by up to a third, according to Sir David King, the Government's former chief scientist, who has warned of shortages and price spikes within years. The scientist and researchers from Oxford University argue that official figures are inflated because member countries of the oil cartel, OPEC, over-reported reserves in the 1980s when competing for global market share. Their new research argues that estimates of conventional reserves should be downgraded from 1,150bn to 1,350bn barrels to between 850bn and 900bn barrels and claims that demand may outstrip supply as early as 2014. The researchers claim it is an open secret that OPEC is likely to have inflated its reserves, but that the International Energy Agency (IEA), BP, the Energy Information Administration and World Oil do not take this into account in their statistics. 'It is necessary to investigate ambiguities and sources of error that are broadly acknowledged but not taken into account in public data due to political sensitivities,' the researchers said. The paper also raises concerns that public statistics have started to incorporate non-conventional reserves such as the Canadian tar sands, where oil and gas are much more difficult to extract and may never be economically attractive to develop. Sir David said that although the IEA was doing a good job of warning that more investment in oil and gas exploration is needed, governments need to pay more attention to independent research. 'The IEA functions through fees that are paid into it by member companies and has to keep its clients happy,' he said. 'We're not operating under that basis. This is objective analysis. We're not sitting on any oil fields. It's critically important that reserves have been overstated, and if you take this into account, we're talking supply not meeting demand in 2014-2015.' The concept of 'peak oil' has gained traction in recent years, although energy companies such as BP and Shell insist that production will be able to keep pace with growing Asian energy needs. Sir David said he was 'very concerned' that Western governments were not taking the concept of 'peak oil' – where demand outstrips production – seriously enough, while China is throwing all its efforts into grabbing as many energy resources as possible.... Dr Oliver Inderwildi, who co-wrote the paper with Sir David and Nick Owen for Oxford University's Smith School, believes radical measures such as switching freight transport to airships could become common in future. 'The belief that alternative fuels such as biofuels could mitigate oil supply shortages and eventually replace fossil fuels is a pie in the sky. Instead of relying on those silver bullet solutions, we have to make better use of the remaining resources by improving efficiency.'"
Oil reserves 'exaggerated by one third'
Daily Telegraph, 22 March 2010

'Peak Oil' And Energy Crisis News - Click Here

Straight Talking From Lib Dem Economics Spokesman Vince Cable
But Not During An Election!

"This year's Petroleum Geology Conference in London included the following item on the agenda: Peak Oil: Advancing the topical debate over the timing of peak oil & gas 'The aim of the Geological Society's Peak Oil evening meeting is to further discuss and debate the timing and impact of Peak Oil & Gas. ....'... BP chief geologist David Jenkins argued for the motion that peak oil is 'no longer a concern,' and Jeremy Leggett argued against, incorporating the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security conclusions into his case. At the end of the debate, approximately five hundred oil-industry geologists voted. Only about a third voted in favor of the motion 'Peak oil is no longer a concern.' The debate has been written up in November's issue of Petroleum Review."
Geologists Vote that Peak Oil is a Concern
The Oil Drum, 8 November 2009

"Demand for oil will hit an all-time high this year, the International Energy Agency has forecast. The agency also warned that increased global consumption, fuelled by a near-20 per cent leap in demand in China, could choke off economic recovery in the UK and continental Europe. The energy adviser estimated that oil demand worldwide would hit 86.6 million barrels of oil per day this year — 2 per cent higher than last year and an increase of 1.67 million barrels a day. Demand is expected to just exceed the 86.5 million barrels a day consumed in 2007, the last full year before the onset of the global economic crisis. The forecast is an upward revision by 100,000 barrels a day compared with the agency’s estimates last month. The agency said that resurgent demand showed the two-speed nature of the global economic recovery from recession and highlighted the effect on the oil price, which hit an 18-month high of more than $87 a barrel last week. The agency said in its report: 'Ultimately things might turn messy for producers if $80-$100 per barrel is merely seen as the new $60-$80, stunting economic recovery while prompting resurgent non-oil and non-Opec supply investment. A recovery in oil demand is moving apace. The return of economic growth and hence oil demand growth is fuelling the increase.' Higher prices allied with still-tight credit conditions 'could stall OECD economic recovery' the agency said, adding that recent higher prices could be 'sustained, raising anew concerns about the impact on the global economy'. ”
Demand for oil will hit record levels and threaten recovery, says energy agency
London Times, 14 April 2010

"...the U.S. Joint Forces command recently issued a Joint Operating Environment report warning that surplus oil production capacity could vanish as soon as 2012, leading to serious oil shortages by 2015. Dire consequences, they predict, could follow quickly. What they are essentially predicting is the onset of 'peak oil'—the point at which the demand for oil will always be higher than the actual supply. While it will be hard to predict exactly what will happen in the face of such a drastic sea change in the world’s energy supply, the report says 'it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds.' It may cause fragile states to become failing states and failing states to collapse, while also causing major problems for overpopulated oil-guzzling states such as China and India. Here in the U.S., the possibility of at least a difficult recession is very strong. The report notes, 'One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest.' If this were one study, it would be scary enough, but the report’s conclusion aligns with a peak oil study from Kuwait as well as an estimate done by billionaire Richard Branson’s energy taskforce."
U.S. Military Warns of Serious Oil Shortfall by 2015
Miami Herald, 16 April 2010

"Rising oil prices pose a grave threat to global economic recovery, according to some economists. Thus it was sobering this week to read that the US military has warned the world faces a 'severe energy crunch' and looming oil shortages. According to a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, 'a severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity'. .... More ominously, the military predicts a 'Peak Oil' scenario - where demand outstrips the world's supply capacity - as soon as 2012. 'By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels a day.' Current oil demand is about 86 million barrels a day. The repercussions of Peak Oil have potentially grave consequences both economically and militarily. On the military front the USFC notes that already Chinese 'civilians' are in the Sudan guarding oil pipelines to protect supply, and that this 'could portend a future in which other states intervene in Africa to protect scarce resources. The implications for future conflict are ominous, if energy supplies cannot keep up with demand and should states see the need to militarily secure dwindling energy resources,' the report says. 'While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in the developing and developed worlds. 'Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment.'"
Oil crunch by 2012, say military experts
The Courier-Mail (Australia), 16 April 2010

"Bank of America and Barclays Capital, two leading oil traders, have told clients to brace for crude above $100 (Ł64) a barrel by next year, before it pushes relentlessly higher over the decade. This is a stark contrast from recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, when it took years to work off excess drilling capacity built in the boom. 'Oil has the potential to flirt with $100 this year. We forecast an average price of $137 by 2015,' said Amrita Sen, an oil expert at BarCap. The price has doubled to $78 in the last year. 'The groundwork for the next sustained step up in oil prices is now almost complete. Global spare capacity is likely to be reduced to low levels within a relatively short time. The global economic crisis has postponed, but not cancelled, a crunch which would otherwise be starting to bite now,' said Barclays. Francisco Blanch, from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said crude may touch $105 next year, with $150 in sight by 2014. 'Approximately 1.7bn consumers in emerging markets with a per capita income of $5,000 to $20,000 are eagerly waiting to buy cars, air-conditioning units, or white goods,' he said. China has overtaken the US as the world's top car market. Mr Blanch expects oil demand to rise by a further 2.8m barrels per day (bpd) in China and 2.5m bpd in India by 2015, when two giants will be absorbing the lion's share of Gulf output. Consumption in the West has already peaked and will fall each year as populations shrink and we waste less, but the West no longer sets the price. Global use will increase by 8.8m bpd to 95m bpd....Mr Blanch said output from non-OPEC states is falling by 4.9pc each year, despite Russia's reserves. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates can plug a quarter of the gap, but global spare capacity must soon drop to wafer-thin levels – leaving us vulnerable to the sort of 'super-spike' seen in 2008. The wildcard is whether Iraq can quadruple output to Saudi levels this decade, a target dismissed by most analysts as pie-in-the-sky. Painfully high prices are needed to unlock fresh supplies as reserves are depleted in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-water rigs off Brazil are costly and require drilling far below the seabed. Canadian oil sands and US biofuels have break-even costs near $70. While the US, UK, and the Far East are turning to nuclear power, it takes a decade to build reactors. 'peak uranium' lurks in any case. The oil spike brought the global economy to a shuddering halt in 2008. This time the crunch may hit before the West has fully recovered. Whatever happens, the US, Europe and Japan will soon transfer a chunk of their wealth to the petro-powers. It is a new world order."
Barclays and Bank of America see looming oil crunch
Daily Telegraph, 18 February 2010

Want To Understand The First Decade Of The New Millennium?

1999
"For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."
Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton, later US Vice President to George W Bush
Speech at London Institute of Petroleum, Autumn Lunch 1999

2001
"I want to thank you all for coming today. I've assembled a team within my administration, in particular, the Secretary of Energy, as well as the Deputy Secretary of Defense [Paul Wolfowitz, the man who pushed hardest for the invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11, an event with which Iraq had no connection], to discuss energy. As the country knows, we're in the process of developing a comprehensive energy plan that will work to increase supplies, as well as encourage conservation..... I think conservation has got to be an integral part of making sure we've got a reasonable energy policy. But what the Vice President [Dick Cheney] was saying is we can't conserve our way to energy independence; nor can we conserve our way to having enough energy available. So we've got to do both. We must conserve, but we've also got to find new sources of energy. I haven't seen the final report yet, but I suspect the American people will find a balanced approach. But what people need to hear, loud and clear, is that we're running out of energy in America. And it is so important for this nation to improve its infrastructure so we can not only deliver supplies, but we need to go find new supply.....what the Vice President and I understand is that you cannot conserve your way to energy independence. We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply. It is naive for the American people and its -- and those who purport to speak for the American people, some of those, to say that we can be okay from an energy perspective by only focusing on conservation. We've got to find additional supplies of energy."
Remarks by the President, Secretary of Energy Abraham and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz After Energy Advisors Meeting
Office Of The Press Secretary, White House, 3 May 2001

"The Bush Administration began making plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks, as has been previously reported. That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider.... In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. 'It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,' says O'Neill in the book.... "
Saddam Ouster Planned Early '01?
CBS News, 10 January 2004

2003
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge
what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Alan Greenspan, Chairman Of The US Federal Reserve 1987 - 2006
Sunday Times, 16 September 2007

"The Iraq war was just the first of this century's 'resource wars', in which powerful countries use force to secure valuable commodities, according to the UK government's former chief scientific adviser. Sir David King predicts that with population growth, natural resources dwindling, and seas rising due to climate change, the squeeze on the planet will lead to more conflict. 'Future historians might look back on our particular recent past and see the Iraq war as the first of the conflicts of this kind - the first of the resource wars,' he told an audience of 400 in London as he delivered the British Humanist Association's Darwin Day lecture. '"
UK's ex-science chief predicts century of 'resource' wars
Guardian, 13 February 2009

2007
"If Iraqi production does not rise exponentially by 2015, we have a very big problem, even if Saudi Arabia fulfills all its promises. The numbers are very simple, there's no need to be an expert.... Within 5 to 10 years, non-OPEP production will reach a peak and begin to decline, as reserves run out. There are new proofs of that fact every day. At the same we'll see the peak of China's economic growth. The two events will coincide: the explosion of Chinese growth, and the fall in non-OPEP oil production. Will the oil world manage to face that twin shock is an open question.... I really hope that consuming nations will understand the gravity of the situation and put in place radical and extremely tough policies to curb oil demand growth."
Fatir Birol, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency
Le Monde, 27 June 2007

2010
"At a meeting of oil leaders at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Tony Hayward, group chief executive of BP, said that there was a 'supply challenge' for the industry which would have to increase output to 100mbd - a new peak for oil. Mr Hayward said that at present the world was producing between 83 and 84mbd. He said he hoped Iraq would become a major oil player, producing up to 10mbd in the next decade if the political situation remains relatively stable. A need for a new peak in oil production will dismay environmental campaigners who hoped that the West’s declining reliance on oil would mean less CO2 emissions. Instead, demand from the emerging economies, including India and the other BRIC countries, China, Russia and Brazil, will lead to new record levels of consumption. Mr Hayward’s comments were supported by Peter Voser, the chief executive of Shell, who said that the industry would have to find up to $27trn of investment over the next 20 years to meet demand. At the session new figures from PriceWaterhouseCoopers revealed that non-OECD countries will account for two-thirds of world consumption by 2030. Mr Hayward said that demand from non-OECD nations would increase by 40pc. 'The obvious thing in the mature markets of Europe and the United States is that demand for oil products is in structural decline,' Mr Hayward said. He argued that demand was now coming from the East, pointing out that China sold 13m cars last year. 'The challenge is how do we meet this growing demand for oil and keep a lid on price?' Hayward said.....Turning to Iraq, Mr Hayward said that he was 'cautiously optimistic' that the country could increase world supply. 'BP has a major contract to redevelop an existing field that BP first found in 1953,' Mr Hayward said, revealing that he wanted to increase BP production from 1mbd to 3mbd. Iraq could eventually produce 10mbd. Mr Voser said that although much of the oil in Iraq was 'easy oil' (onshore and relatively accessible) its technology was 20 years behind much of the rest of the sector. ..... Andrew Liveris, chairman and chief executive of Dow Chemical Company, one of the largest industrial users of oil in the world, said that price stability was essential for economic growth. He revealed that in 2002 the cost to the company of its oil needs was $8bn and that had risen to $32bn by 2008. At times such was the volatility of the market there would be a '10pc aberration' in the oil price in a week. 'We need certainty, we need predictability,' he said."
Davos 2010: a new peak in oil production is needed, energy leaders argue
Daily Telegraph, 28 January 2010

"Total has previously mentioned 100 Mb/d [for the peak of global oil production] and that they are now saying 95 Mb/d shows that they are approaching the conclusion that my Ph.D. student Fredrik Robelius presented in his thesis. That scenario had a maximal production of 93 Mb/d in 2018. The requirement for that level of production was that production from 7 giant oil fields in Iraq would commence immediately. The fact that this has been delayed makes it all the more difficult to reach that production level."
Kjell Aleklett, President of ASPO International
ASPO Intenational, 4 February 2010

'Peak Oil' And Energy Crisis News - Click Here

So What Exactly Is It That Is 'At The Top Of The Global Political And Economic Agenda' According To The CEO Of BP
Yet Is Barely Mentioned In The British Election Which Supposedly Revolves Around The Economy ?

'The Bottom Line'
Elections Are A Popularity Contest Not A Truth Contest
Politicians Can Barely Tell Us The Unpleasant Truth Because Then We Won't Vote For Them
So Don't Blame The Politicians For The Collapse Of The System

"Translating Nick Clegg’s debating victory into an electoral breakthrough will be very hard for the Liberal Democrats.... the other parties, and the media, will subject Lib Dem policies to much closer scrutiny. Being self-consciously 'brave and honest' is not the same as being popular."
Nick Clegg puts Lib Dems on map but party still faces electoral mountain
London Times, 17 April 2010

"If you speak to people in the industry, they will conceed that whatever my company may say publicly, we understand that we are facing decline in our own production and worldwide, we are not going to be able to produce more fuel liquids or crude oil in the near future... I was recently at a conference in New Mexico, sitting next to one of the recent CEOs of a major oil company and he, in response to a question from the audience, said 'of course I am a peakist, it is just a question of when it is coming' and I think that that is illustrative of once one is retired as a CEO, one is freer than one was in position to say I am a peakist. And what you hear privately from almost all people is we are coming to it.... I think that many of these politicians will ultimately find that the public blames them for its failure to warn them. Of course in a sense the public is responsible because it is the present public attitude to which politicians play up, and tell them what they want to hear but when the view of the world changes, what the public wanted to hear some time ago is no longer what they want to hear in the future."
James Schlesinger, former US Energy Secretary
Interview with David Strahan, ASPO 6, September 2007