“Wouldn’t it be worth five years of Labour lunacy just to give British conservatism the kick up the arse it needs?” a correspondent asks me.
I know that many of us have harboured similar mischievous thoughts from time to time.
Part of me just longs to see all those earnest Momentum kids who think the only problem with communism is that it hasn’t been tried properly yet suddenly reduced by Comrade McDonnell’s economic policies to eating their family cat.
But the price we’d pay for such merriment, unfortunately, is that whatever new conservative movement emerged from the ruins would be building on rubble and ashes: five years of Labour would simply destroy Britain.
Take Corbyn’s energy and environment policies, which have been leaked to the press.
Helena Morrissey is one of the smartest cookies in UK finance, whom I particularly admire because she has achieved her success without playing the identity politics game or indeed indulging in feminist political correctness of any kind.
What Morrissey says about how “the market” is feeling about the Conservative party rings very true. It’s a Daenerys and Jon Snow moment: the love has gone and nothing the wounded, bereft party does from now on can ever rekindle it.
It’s time our politicians came clean on climate change. We need to know exactly where they stand. Are they for
a) junk science, cooked books, rigged data, old people dying in fuel poverty, landscapes trashed and wildlife slaughtered by bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, enriched crony capitalists, higher taxes, green ideologues making the rules, economic stagnation, wealth redistribution, brainwashed kids, academic corruption, the decline of the West?
b) economic growth, the scientific method, cheap energy, rising standards of living, deregulation, freedom, liberty, abundance, conservation, nature, prosperity, limited government?
You can be one or the other but you can’t be both any more than you can be half pregnant.
And it’s time we stopped indulging those politicians, especially on the conservative side of the argument, who pretend you can.
This is why I praised Nigel Farage for his sensible response at the weekend to a climate change question by a BBC interviewer.
Nigel Farage just totally destroyed a BBC interviewer on TV this morning. And, in doing so, Farage reminded us exactly why his Brexit Party is flying so high in the polls, why he’s being tipped as a future prime minister, and why the current shambles of a Conservative party is so inadequate to the task of beating him…
Interviewer Andrew Marr began by making the huge mistake of treating Farage like the BBC treats all politicians to the right of Lenin: with unutterable contempt, as if he were a dangerous idiot with wacky views which no civilised person could possibly hold.
Marr began (from a long list of “gotcha” questions designed to make Farage look like an extremist) with climate change:
‘Unfunny, boring and utterly unrelenting,’ says the Guardian’s one-star review of Chris Lilley’s new sketch series Lunatics (Netflix). And if that’s not incentive enough, our woke critical chum goes on to declare the series ‘problematic’. That’s a weaselly way of saying ‘this triggered all my snowflake sensitivities’ but in such a way as to make it sound like a loftily objective judgment.
In truth, Lunatics is only problematic if a) you have no sense of humour and b) you’d prefer all comedy to be politically correct, inoffensive and utterly devoid of satirical edge.
Cambridge University, formerly a respected seat of learning, has booted out a young scholar for daring to champion the cause of free inquiry. Dr Noah Carl was a graduate research student at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge.
According to a statement initially released by the college but now deleted from its website, Dr Carl had his research fellowship terminated because his work was “problematic”.
The statement claimed:
“The poor scholarship of this problematic body of Dr Carl’s work, among other things, meant that it fell outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech.”
“…the panel found that, in the course of pursuing this problematic work, Dr Carl had collaborated with a number of individuals who were known to hold extremist views. There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the College being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred, and bring the College into disrepute.”
These claims are, of course, self-serving, disingenuous, and quite possibly libellous nonsense.
I’m just having a quick whip-round to which I know many readers will be eager to contribute: it’s to raise money to help Olly Robbins begin a new life in Belgium.
Robbins, as you know, is the senior civil servant — Theresa May’s chief Brexit adviser — who has done so much to try to help ensure that Brexit doesn’t happen and that Britain remains stuck in the European Union till the end of time.
Now we know why: it turns out Robbins’s secret ambition is to live at the very heart of the EU project as a Belgian citizen.
We learn this from a BBC4 behind-the-scenes documentary about Brexit seen from the perspective of the EU’s negotiators.
Tories believe in a society that is built from the bottom up where the state is there to help and protect, not to order and direct…
The object of a Conservative government is to allow people to lead the lives that they want, while trying to take obstacles out of their way.
The best interests of the collective are served by the free choices of individuals, rather than the socialist ideal that the best interests of the individual are served by the orders of the collective.
Yes! Imagine what an amazing, prosperous and free place Britain would be if its next government understood these basic principles. What I like about them is the way they put clear blue water between the ideology of the left and the ideology of the right – but without coming across as off-puttingly ideological or too constrictingly party political.
The United Nations has produced a report warning that a million species are threatened with extinction.
Here is why you shouldn’t take it seriously.
It’s politics, not science
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which produced the report, is a political organisation not a scientific one. Just like its sister organisation the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — IPCC — in fact.
As Donna Laframboise notes here, both exist purely to give a fig leaf of scientific credibility to the UN’s ‘sustainability’ agenda.