Just when you thought Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a novel, not a warning, along comes Prof Peter Odell. 

According to the Guardian, he wants government to "take back" North Sea oil production.  More state control is needed, apparently, to ensure that the big oil companies work more in the national interest.

Apparently Prof Odell has advised the oil cartel, OPEC.  

The Guardian quotes Prof Odell thus "UK oil and gas production has been steadily declining since 1999. The reason is that the UK government, unlike those of most other countries, has abandoned oil and gas production to the private sector." 

Surely it's the private sector that keeps on finding new ways to extract more oil, thus ensuring that we get more of the stuff than the experts once forecast?  

Does anyone seriously think if the sort of quangocrats who run our exam system, for example, ran North Sea oil we'd be better off?

Is it any surprise that half a century after publication, Ayn Rand's tale of Floyd Ferris, Wesley Mooch and Wyatt oil keeps on ...

read more >>

 

Link to original post ... read more >>

On February 25th Paul Tellier and David Emerson - two men whose understanding of Ottawa I have a tremendous amount of respect for - released The Fourth Report of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service. It is a document that is worth diving into as these reports will likely serve as reference points for (re)thinking on renewing government for the foreseeable future.

The Bad:

On the rough side, I have a single high-level comment: These reports are likely to be as close as we are going to get in Canada to Australia's Government 2.0 Taskforce (on which I served as part of the international reference group) or Britain's Cabinet Office Power of Information Taskforce Report (which would have been tremendous to have been involved in).

To be clear, this is not the fault of the committee. Its terms of reference appear to be much broader. This has to predictable consequences. First, relatively little time is dedicated to the general reorganizing of society being prompted by the now 40 year old internet revolution is only carving out a small role. The committee is thus not able to dive into any detail on how the changing role of information in society, on open data, ... read more >>

Over the past two decades, a series of trends have resulted in a chorus of voices in Congress, the media and the public concluding that the current federal contracting system is broken.  Between 1989 and 2000, Congress mandated deep cuts in the Defense acquisition workforce.  During the 1990s, the federal government shifted its contracting approach from one focused on buying supplies to one buying services, using new flexible contracting vehicles.  Beginning in 2000, federal contracting increased from $220 billion to over $530 billion in 2008, with no increase in contracting staff.  Finally, the focus on awarding this increased number contracts resulted in less focus on managing the contractual relationships.  This led to unethical actors exploiting the system.

Progress to Date. The Obama Administration issued a series of directives focusing on defense acquisition, an examination of the use of outsourcing of government work, the use of cost-reimbursement contracts, and insufficient competition.  It set a goal of cutting $40 billion in contracts.  It also increased investment in the contracting workforce, starting with Defense.

Key Challenges. ... read more >>

First China had a pop at Google.  Now it's the EU's turn to launch an attack on the world’s most successful internet information provider. 

Why is it undemocratic governments have such an attitude against Google?

Ironic, isn't it?  The EU launches an anti-trust investigation against Google, yet far more people in Europe will today freely "vote Google" with a mouse-click than ever had a say over Brussels. 

While the Eurocrats achieved their position of prominence over our lives by stealth and deception, Google got there by providing what we want. Google operates in a fiercely competitive online environment. She may be ubiquitous, but even with a successful brand and strategy, the barriers to entry and competition online are low.  Just ask Alta Vista or Yahoo.

I suspect that like Beijing officials, Brussels officials bully Google ultimately because they dislike what the business stands for.  Google makes possible the free flow of information, the democratisation of knowledge, cutting out the middleman, niche everything, mass (individual) ownership of the means of production, ...

read more >>

Census Director Robert Groves is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill next week.

By Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY

Even as Census takers have begun the decennial head count in Alaska and other remote areas, the system is still not ready to handle the paperwork and payroll data for what eventually will be a half-million Census takers.

The software to schedule, deploy and pay Census takers is at risk, according to the report released this week by the inspector general for the Commerce Department, which includes the Census Bureau. If changes are not made, the Census risks ballooning costs, delays and inaccuracies.

The Census Bureau must deliver a complete count of the nation’s population to President Obama by Dec. 31. The counts are used to allocate each state’s seats in the House of Representatives every 10 years and more than $400 billion a year in federal aid.

Census forms will be mailed to more than 130 million households next month. One-third ... read more >>

In the last week four separate Gov 2.0/social media conferences have crossed my desk. All claimed to provide a line-up of star speakers with important insights into these topics.

Clearly all events vary in quality, but when looking at relatively new areas, like social media and Government 2.0 how do you select those that will give you value for money. Teach you useful material and provide practical examples?

Here's how I judge them....

First I look at the topic covered throughout the event.

If there is emphasis on areas like 'Email marketing', 'Search Engine Optimisation (SEO)' or similar non-social media/Gov 2.0 topics it is likely that the organisers don't understand these topics or are pushing a different agenda.

Next I check the social media support

If the brochure doesn't specify whether there will be wi-fi available, if there's a Twitter tag, liveblog or a social media group for participants to discuss topics before, during and after the event, check with the organisers. If they don't understand what you mean, they probably don't have the knowledge to consistently select good speakers.

Finally I look at the speaker list.

I look for speakers who ... read more >>

This morning I was met with something that should be considered a terrible situation for a presidential campaign manager – a poll that states that a potential candidate for the presidency is considered unequipped to do the job by a little over 70% of the public. If this was about anyone other than Sarah Palin, I would assume that her advisers were either scanning the dismal job ads for their next gig, or cleaning their handguns in preparation for suicide. But, even this may not be the end of the line for her – sadly, it could be considered a “good” thing.

First, one must consider the fact that this poll also included the public opinion on government in general – two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied or downright angry with how the government is working. Palin just came off delivering a speech to many of the “downright angry” folks, hanging on the question “How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya?”. Ironically enough, she’s pinning her future political aspirations on a different kind of “hope and change”, and is borrowing at least a few tricks from the Obama campaign of 2008, at least where playing up charisma is concerned.

Palin is a saleswoman – detractors could .. ... read more >>

What to make of the splat between MI5 and the judiciary?

I'm instinctively suspicious of secretive, unaccountable state institutions.  Without proper accountability, we all know how branches of the state end up doing the wrong thing. 

But does that mean one should be sceptical of MI5 or of the judiciary?  The latter is no more answerable to the rest of us than the former. 

I'm very familiar with all the civil liberties arguments.  Readers of this blog will know I'm pretty suspicious of overbearing state power.  But is it the judiciary or the intelligence services that are weilding power without accountability here? 

Is it really wise for the judiciary to ham-string the ability of the British state to act against terror? 

Remember how, entirely seperately from this recent row, the judges ruled that the state could not detain terror suspects - even one's who had entered Britain illegally?  They did so despite the fact that the suspects were entirely free to leave the country.  Indeed, their detention came as a last resort precisely because they refused to leave the country. ... read more >>