At least Martin Wolf in the FT gets the idea that everything really has changed as a result of the war in Russia. In the conclusion to a column he wrote yesterday he said:
Russia's war on Ukraine has ... transformed the map of our world. A prolonged bout of stagflation seems certain, with large potential effects on financial markets. In the long term, the emergence of two blocs with deep splits between them is likely, as is an accelerating reversal of globalisation and sacrifice of business interests to geopolitics. Even nuclear war is, alas, conceivable.
For once, he may be right, without qualification required, although I would argue that stagflation is avoidable.
But right now I have a very strong feeling that no one in our government appreciates that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’ve checked a map and this looks like fake news.
There is a war in Ukraine , not Russia.
Unless you believe as a Putin apologist that Ukraine is part of greater Russia of course
Russia is the country we are at war with
Maybe you haven’t noticed
And yes, we are at war with it
@ Kinnock Tea Cake
What a remarkably stupid comment
> There is a war in Ukraine , not Russia.
Yes, correct. But why have you said this? When the quoted article says
> Russia’s war on Ukraine
i.e. there is a war in Ukraine, being perpetrated by Russia. How does that even come close to being an apologist for Putin?
The person in question posted several more comments after this one – all treated as spam
They are clearly a pro Russian troll
Stagflation will happen because of the faithlessness that bedevils modern politicians will result in them going to the wealthy for advice about such matters.
Politicians conflate wealth with intelligence and knowledge without considering that it is a very narrow-minded sort of intelligence and knowledge that creates in the first place.
“A prolonged bout of stagflation seems certain,”.
I was at a meeting today in Bx on energy matters. A massive build-out of renewables in the EU is starting – coupled to hydrogen production (projects have been announced that equal the 2030 40GW target), coupled to energy renovation of buildings. If Wolf is commenting about the UK – then perhaps he is correct – Mendacious Fatberg seems to be happy to buy Saudi oil etc. But the impression I have wrt the EU is different. Very strong messages coming from some big power players today – both to the Commission and the member states. I also note that Intel announced a Euro33bn (in Germany, Ireland, France, Italy & Poland). So I’m a bit more optimistic.
Surey what we need is a trnasmission link from the EU to Scotland, because there is more renewable energy potential there than anywhere in Europe. The only handicap to real progress in the research, innovation, investment and development potential of Scotland – is the British Government. Furthermore there is no prospect of Westminster allowing such a transmission link connecting to Scotland because it wants 100% guaranteed, absolute control over such a network.
“a transmission link from the EU to Scotland,” this already exists (Denmark, Germany & netherlands) – in the form of gas pipelines – at least 40% in the North Sea can already carry hydrogen (UK gov report on the subject). EU is short of gas & Scotland could add value by converting elec in-situ to H2. Projects along these lines are developing but, in my view, not fast enough. Part of the problem wrt the Scottish gov’ (this is my impression – I could be wroing) is that it lacks formal responsibilities/political power in matters of energy.
Mr Parr,
You are correct about the Scottish Government. Energy is not devolved, but a “reserved” matter (to Westminster). Many Scots are confused about responsibilities; because it was designed to confuse. If you followed the Scottish Conservative tactic; it is to present the Scottish Government as already entirely independent, and therefore failing to solve Scotland’s problems; at the same time arguing that the Scottish Government can only do anything at all because of the generous, over-indulgent largesse of the British Government’s ample resources. There is no effort made to reconcile the obvious contradiction.
As ever interested in your analysis of the pipeline, but I did not understand the gas pipeline reference properly; because I do not understand how renewable electricity generated in Scotland could use a gas pipeline? I probably misunderstood, but if I may make this observation; you knowledge is clealry substantial, and your passion for the subject undeniable, but I think you sometimes assume a general depth of understanding of the subject among readers that may be optimistic.
More generally, I would appreciate if you and Richard could at some stage collaborate on an energy paper (not just for the accounting insight Richard brings), but his capacity to convert complex economic/political issues for a wide readership. Sorry to you both, because I am sure I am just trying to increase an unwanted burden of work, but I think it could prove a great public service; especially now.
There; I have wanted to write these words for some time, and now have (if I amy say) neatly unburdened the thought – so you know what to do!
John
I’d love to do that too, but as Mike knows I have not dealt with data he has already sent me
I am finite, but I am open to talking to Mike about it
Richard
Reply to Mike Parr’s post at 6:18pm on 16 March:
You are correct: all matters relating to energy (electricity, oil & gas, coal, nuclear, energy efficiency) are reserved to Westminster. This is the principal reason for the slow development of tidal – for over a decade the UK Gov has had an on/of, stop/go attitude towards the funding of R&D costs relating to tidal. Such progress as has been made has been as a result of the Scottish Gov (with its very restricted borrowing powers) engaging with the industry and getting some financial support from the EU, although I’m not sure how that stands after Brexit. Submerged tidal arrays in the Pentland Firth are already productive and the technology for floating turbines has been proven (Nova Scotia is being supplied with electricity generated by floating turbines in the Bay of Fundy – a technology developed here in Scotland but not yet deployed here). It speaks volumes about the Tories’ attitude about climate change and Scotland that it ignores the only 100% reliable 24/7 source of renewable energy.
I am only a bear with a small brain but the hike in energy prices coupled with the potential disruption to global food supplies is going to make for an interesting few years to say the least.
It boggles the imagination to think that the collective IQ of The Government is less than mine
They choose to be blind to the issue
I have just listened to David Cameron on C4 News claim that his premiership took a lead in sanctions against Russia, after Crimea. My jaw hit the floor. This was following Matt Frei reminding him of his 2011 Moscow speech encouraging closer links with Putin, notably after the Georgia invasion and long after the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006; to which Cameron claims to have made a tough response, when he in fact offered minimum reaction, and rolled over in a lame excuse for resistance.
It is quite outrageous how badly people like Cameron, Johnson, Patel, Mogg and the rest of the Conservative leadership have reduced the discourse of politics to meaningless banality, where nothing means anything at all; a perpetually recycled box of stock sound-bites and slogans; shuffled and re-booted to fit the passing moment’s needs or convenient glib evasion, before moving on to the next event, safe in the security that every single word is so empty, so pointless, so bereft of substance, nobody will remember any of it by the time of the next newscast – or care.
I will not bore you with his witless claims about his notably wise judgement of the oligarch issue; it was frankly ludicrous; but delivered with the facile air of caring earnestness he specialised in, and I had only too gladly forgotten.
Mr Warren, your “meaningless banality” paragraph is outstanding. May I quote and share it? If yes, attribute it to you by name?
I fear, BTW, that the current Opposition leadership has gone the same way.
Thank you for the kind words, please go ahead, and pleased my words may be of some use in these dark days. I am sure that my exasperation (on the cusp of anger) at the endless insult to the general public’s intelligence which is practiced by politicians in power, is widely shared.