purple scorpion

It's worth subscribing to the comments on the Balcombe blog as a case study in Greens' tactics.

They make claims which are never put in context, are usually unsubstantiated, and often out of date. When a claim is refuted they never acknowledge it. They will just move silently on to another one, and are quite prepared to resurrect the refuted claim after an interval. In this way they draw proponents of shale onto ground of their choosing. The public just hear rebuttals of the negative, they never hear the positive.

Greens know better than to engage on their opponents' ground. So why concentrate on trying to flush out the green guerillas from theirs?

Proponents of shale exploitation need to get on the front foot and make their positive case to wide audiences again and again. Cheaper energy. More jobs. No subsidies. Less environmental impact than (e.g.) windfarms. Show pictures of modern shale exploitation sites. Words about spread out wellheads don't cut it. Pictures, pictures, pictures. That pictured site is producing as much energy as how many wind turbines?

Modern technology & regulation make contamination risks low. Put two tiny tremors in context. Get the theme of low environmental impact into national public consciousness, so that presentations to local people have something to build on. Ensure local communities will benefit.

Keep stressing the positive case, and don't be afraid to press government publicly to grant licences and facilitate exploration. Cheaper energy. More jobs. Small footprint.

So don't spend all the time and energy on Greens' propaganda. Hammer the positive themes. Cheaper energy. More jobs. Small footprint.

Keep making the case to the public. Why doesn't government grant more licences so that we can have cheaper energy and more jobs with a small footprint?

See? :)

Andrew Neil is casting his beady eye over the coalition's policy on shale.

In a tweet he notes:

Greens say even major energy companies not keen on UK shale gas. But 1. Don't have the licenses to exploit. 2. Shale in US has cut prices.

As we know, some - but only some - majors are shale laggards. The government don't want to hear Cuadrilla's good news on prospects for shale gas extraction - cheap gas would be bad news for the renewables intermittents favoured by Greens, and bad news for the likes of Centrica who want to see gas prices kept high.

Start to see a pattern here? Neil adds:

The Green-Big Energy-Government alliance UK shale is a fascinating phenomenon.

Indeed - it's a conspiracy against the prosperity of mere voters - what do proles matter?

P.S. Tim Worstall adds that it's not up to government to guess whether Britain has shale reserves which can produce meaningful amounts of gas or oil.

we’re only going to find out by trying it rather than leaving the decision to a few men in suits in an office.

Perhaps they don't want the answer to be "Yes We Can".

Ed Davey showed himself beyond vapid in Sunday's interview with Andrew Neil.

The coalition has a deliberate policy of putting up the cost of gas, electricity and water, and keeps talking about action on climate change.

"Climate change"? We all know the climate's always changing. They mean "global warming", but they can't say so for fear of ridicule. But the format of the short interview forces the interviewer to listen to such drivel in silence.

Davey has decided to play down the impact shale extraction could have on UK gas prices. This suits coalition policy of putting fossil fuel prices up in the hope that expensive renewables intermittents may become competitive.

So ministers held a meeting about shale prospects without inviting Cuadrilla or anyone who had seen their core data or open hole log data.

To do that as an oversight would be astonishingly incompetent even for this lot of bunglers. So we have to assume it was a policy of deliberate spin and deception.

Open Europe report a new classic. During a press conference in Washington François Hollande said:

It would most probably be desirable to have a recapitalisation [of Spanish banks], and it would most probably be necessary that this recapitalisation takes place through mechanisms of European solidarity.

Hollande’s remarks, report Open Europe, have drawn a rebuke from Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy:

If he said that, it must be because Mr Hollande has information that we don't have. Therefore, I don’t think Mr Hollande said that because, logically, he doesn’t know how the Spanish banks are.

Open Europe add, dryly, "Hollande and Rajoy will meet in Paris on Wednesday".

Meanwhile, Les Echos reports that France is the most exposed country to a Greek exit from the euro. French institutions currently own €65bn worth of Greek sovereign debt, and €37.6bn worth of private debt. France is the sixth largest exporter to Greece, and its biggest investor.

And French authorities are racing to avoid a rescue of Caisse Centrale du Credit Immobilier after Moody’s downgraded the mortgage lender last week to junk, warning it could become totally reliant on taxpayer support within months.

What a shame.

Four Spanish regional governments have reported higher debts than they had before.

Spain´s regions control almost half of spending, including socially sensitive areas like healthcare and education, and have a long history of budget overruns.

Moody's has lowered its rating on four further Spanish regions, dropping two of them to junk level.

Spain has pledged to cut its deficit to the 3%-of-GDP limit for euro zone countries in 2013 but the EU forecasts it will be 6.3%. Spain's banks are looking like a bottomless pit with their bad debts, while unemployment is over 24% - the highest in the eurozone.

Like Greece, Spain has a jerry built economy. How long will Spaniards tolerate worsening recession?

Meanwhile, Iceland is using devaluation as a route to economic recovery. It's not there yet, but it's on its way.

Fraser Nelson has written a good piece about governmnt feebleness at the top, pointing the finger squarely at David Cameron.

He is just a sharp dilettante who reads out speeches other people have written for him. There is no follow through.

As Private Eye asks this week (picking up on the signing off of texts):

What does LOL stand for?
- Lots of Lies
What does DC stand for?
- Nothing at all.

The government's political strategy over immigration is to avoid upsetting anybody too much by putting weak, inoffensive Damian Green in charge of it.

Why anyone would see such a role as the peak of a political career is a mystery. Strange beasts, politicians.

We have seen Green's weakness over the queues at airports, where he twisted ineffectually trying to square a circle which stubbornly resisted.

Quietly the government has launched an illegal immigrants database, which is already receiving one call every six minutes. Discount the nuisance calls and it's still a lot.

In fact once it really takes off the volume will overwhelm the number of enforcement officials - just as happens with reports of benefit fraud.

As with the benefit fraud hotlines, the new illegal immigrant reporting system is cosmetic. Government will point to scattered successes as evidence that the problem is being tackled. In reality it will be the tip of the iceberg.

Just as in the case of benefit fraud, the legal processes cannot handle even the small proportion of offenders caught.

Benefit thieves just face a long wait to come to court and then often trivial penalties. But in the case of immigrants the judicial system militates against enforcement.

Tracking down the illegals gives no guarantee they will eventually be booted out.

Officials have the power of arrest, but can continue to detain them only if there is a good chance of them being imminently deported.

Migrants who sneaked into the country illegally, or over-stayed their visa, often immediately claim asylum.

In addition, a migrant can argue he has settled with a family or had children in the UK – allowing him to claim a right to a ‘family life’ under Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Government shows no sign of tackling this. Behind fumbling Damian Green is deliberate fumbling on policy. There is no serious enforcement process against illegal immigrants. Government's aim is to do just enough to keep immigration out of the headlines while upsetting as few of the chatterati as possible.

Damian Green is a perfect figurehead for that con of a policy.

... says Douglas Carswell. "Those who make personal attacks could not have it more wrong", he claims. "Let’s remember that what we say and do is all about us wanting David Cameron to succeed. ... Let's focus on delivering those changes. Nothing else."

As I comment on his blog

Out here, out in the real world, excuse us for not focusing on the personal affability of the man who is openly rude to you and Nadine Dorries in the Chamber.

Excuse us voters for criticising whatever we want, however we want, whoever we want. It's called democracy.

That is the man responsible for the mess. He sets the policy climate, he connives in non-delivery, he espouses policy like more overseas aid, more green nonsense, and HS2 - at a time when we're hurting financially out here. That is the man who breaks his word on referendums and espouses gay marriage.

How dare MPs tell voters what they should and should not concentrate on.

This is the least convincing post of yours that I have ever read.

So do let's be beastly to Dave. He richly deserves it.

Booker writes a scathing piece about WWF (supplemented by North under the heading World Wide Fraud). They cover its behind the scenes role in the eviction of Tanzanian farmers, its failed attempt to use the Amazon forest to sell "carbon credits", and its sadly not failed attempt to infiltrate the writing of IPCC reports on a massive scale.

So far so scandalous.

Also standing out is the involvement of the UK government. British taxpayers are giving £1.5bn to the UN's Fast Start programme.

When employees of WWF Tanzania were apparently caught in expenses fraud of more than £1m, the local office of Britain’s Department for International Development (DfID) "leapt in to say that, while it “eagerly awaited” Ernst & Young’s report, it wished to emphasise that, although it has a general funding programme with WWF in the area, it had not been responsible for funding any of its projects directly".

Booker adds

When I recently asked DfID what had happened to the report it was “eagerly awaiting” in February, I was told to ask WWF. They told me they had commissioned “a series of reports” on “four projects in Tanzania and the behaviour of a number of staff members there”, not all of which “have yet been completed”. But a summary of their findings will be published “in due course”.

Now, much of WWF's income comes from governments. Let's be clear, British taxpayers are being forced to give money to a wealthy lobbying organisation - this at a time when the government on our behalf is borrowing money as never before.

Supposedly we are all in it together. Seemingly it is the government that is dumping us there.

British taxpayers can give their own money to WWF. That's their choice. But the Westminster do gooders want to give away taxpayers' money - to a rich organisation engaged in perverting the IPCC in support of an increasingly discredited scientific theory which then involves taxpayers in yet more unnecessary expense.

And politicians wonder why those of us outside Westminster choose to excoriate them?

Michael Gove says plans by Ofsted to introduce unannounced inspections from September are likely to be dropped.

"People fear that no-notice inspection sends a message that we don't trust the profession", he said.

Wrong. If you are going to spend taxpayers' money on inspections, inspectors have to see the schools as they really are.

That's the point.

Schools, children and taxpayers deserve no less.

The only people who benefit from inspections being announced in advance are inadequate teaching staff.

If they feel a regime of unannounced inspections shows a lack of trust in them, the answer is:

You bet. That's why we have inspections in the first place.

These taxpayer employees should get over themselves.

Don't back away from unannounced inspections. Don't wimp out.

Boris was lucky in his opponent.

If he had faced a better Labour candidate without Ken standing as an independent, he'd doubtless have lost.

Would Boris have preferred that? He could have been back swiftly in the House of Commons, the nation's political cockpit.

As it is, he will have the hard work of dealing with an Assembly ranged against him.