by Charlie Edwards | Apr 29, 2009 | UK
Obama has apologised, so too have officials. It’s still not clear why US agencies acceded to an FAA request to keep details about the photo op in which a Presidential Boeing 747 flew low around the statue of Liberty followed by two US Air Force Fighters, given the potential for concern and a public relations disaster. As The Times reports:
CBS TV reported last night that it had obtained a memo which made clear that the Federal Aviation Authority knew that the low altitude flyover could cause panic and demanded secrecy from the New York Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service and the mayor’s office.
“The Public Affairs posture for this effort is passive. No media or press releases are planned,” said the memo, which was signed by James Johnston, an FAA security official.
It added: “Due to the possibility of public concern regarding DOD aircraft flying at low levels, coordination with Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies, emergency operations centres and aviation units has been accomplished.”
Risk Communication. Difficult at the best of times, made worse by idiots. As Amanda Ripley suggests:
Perhaps the most alarming thing about the Air Force One fiasco was that it was planned and announced in advance to several agencies–with an order to keep it SECRET. This, to me, stinks to holy hell. I have talked a lot in the past about people in charge not trusting the public–and the devastation that follows. This is a classic bureaucratic move.
by Charlie Edwards | Apr 29, 2009 | UK
On Monday I spoke at the IPPR’s conference on The National Security Strategy: One Year On. The organisers and the Cabinet Office team would, I hope, have been pleased with the meat of the conference – the three panel sessions on domestic/ international security and a separate session on the key drivers of the global insecurity went pretty well.
But sandwiching the panel sessions were two Ministerial speeches and based on what was said and people’s reactions to the speeches it seems as though we are in middle of a crisis of leadership and strategy in UK defence. This isn’t solely an issue for the Government it is an important issue for the Conservative Party and for the Liberal Democrats too.
To be fair to the Defence Secretary John Hutton he had a more difficult challenge than Lord West who opened proceedings. For Mr Hutton the challenge was to tap into the mood of the conference – a hundred or so participants who had spent the day analysing the global security challenges, identifying key concerns, and raising important issues.
The trick with Mr Hutton’s speech was in some way to reflect this mood, embrace some of the more difficult issues but above all listen (after all Mike Clarke had just gone through all the problems of British defence policy). Lastly the crowd was predominantly white, Anglo-saxon, males – average age 40. In short it was a crowd who know all the problems (some are up to the necks in it) but need leadership and a sense of direction.This was not to be. The speech was littered with utterly pointless and disingenuous phrases like:
‘As a Defence Minister, you would rightly expect me to talk about the role of defence in national security and it is here that I want to confine my remarks today.’
‘And I am not prepared to be reckless with our nation’s security.’
‘Our defence policies have adapted comprehensively in recent years from the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, through the New Chapter of that Review four years later, the Defence White Paper of 2003 and its 2004 companion, leading to the NSS itself.’
‘The world remains a dangerous place after all.’
I could go on. The general feeling from the group I was sitting with was that really difficult decisions are about to made and this speech was meant to be a primer – thing is it didn’t work – finally his officials should have done a better job at briefing him before he made his remarks…
Elsewhere the Conservative Party are fighting over defence spending. George Osborne should have been more aggressive – particularly on wastefulness – rather than focusing on the A400M – which was odd. The big question though for the Tories is who will be Defence Secretary in a Conservative Government – it won’t be Liam Fox so who will it be – there isn’t much strength in depth – and that should worry Cameron and his team.
by Charlie Edwards | Apr 29, 2009 | Global system, Influence and networks, UK
In Resilient Nation (pdf) I suggest that the main concern with how government’s approach risk communication is not always what they say but how they say it. Often the failure of emergency planners to motivate communities is the failure to accommodate the fact that it is not information that determines action but how people interpret it – which they do in the context of their experiences and beliefs, and expectations that develop in and are sustained by the community and societal contexts in which they live.
So communicating risk (such as swine flu) demands a nuanced, intelligent and multi-pronged approach. Mass communication based on a single approach (leafleting) won’t be effective – not least because it will fail to penetrate the noise already generated by the event; is slow when the potential risk is perceived to be spreading quickly; and ironically is unlikely to reach your whole audience (btw if you don’t receive your leaflet please contact us).
Instead the goverment should adopt a more targeted approach (which it can’t really do now the NHS have said they will send leaflets to 25,000,000 households) and look at where the most obvious places are to communicate their key messages.The information needs to stick as well. For example contrast these two approaches on the NHS website: The alert and the ‘behind the headlines’- what message did you take away? The NHS also suggests people should establish a network of “flu friends” . Useful but it would have been good if the NHS had thought about taking a networked approach to communicating the risk in the first place.
Finally – and as an antidote to some of the scaremongering in a lot of the press – read Caroline Gammell in The Telegraph and a piece by Simon Jenkins today in the Guardian though David is unimpressed).
And remember, preventing the spread of germs is the single most effective way to slow the spread of diseases such as swine flu. You should always:
* Ensure everyone washes their hands regularly with soap and water
* Clean surfaces regularly to get rid of germs
* Use tissues to cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze
* Place used tissues in a bin as soon as possible
by David Steven | Apr 29, 2009 | What we're watching
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASibLqwVbsk[/youtube]
by Jules Evans | Apr 29, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development, Europe and Central Asia
Lord Browne recently complained that not enough private financing was going into the renewables sector, particularly offshore wind farms, and he called for greater government financing, and suggested this could come from some of the newly state-controlled banks.
I suggest the UK sets up a British development bank in order to finance our shift to a zero carbon economy.
At the moment, we have several development institutions which finance clean-tech and renewables projects, such as the EIB, EBRD and World Bank, though they mainly finance them in emerging market countries, or in certain countries ear-marked by the EU as big receivers of renewable subsidies (Spain and Germany).
The UK needs its own institution to drive development of the green economy here. State-owned development banks have worked well in Asian economies, particularly for critical infrastructure projects which require long-term lending.
We could use the remains of RBS for the bank – RBS has proven experience in infrastructure financing projects.
The bank could also take on deposits, allowing individuals to invest in the transformation of the British economy, and to support the future environmental viability of the island.
Retail investment is a large, and yet mainly untapped, source of liquidity for the renewables industry. The bank could sell ‘eco-bonds’ , for example.
And it could provide government-subsidized mortgages for houses that pass energy efficiency and insulation tests.
Finally, it could provide financing and support to research centres in British universities to make them world-leaders in developing new technology for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
