Wind Farms: The Death of Britain

Britain: 2015

“How the hell did we let that happen?” we often ask ourselves when we look at the brutalist monstrosity tower blocks which we allowed to blight our towns in the sixties. In a few decades’ time we’re going to be asking exactly the same question about the 300 foot wind turbines ruining what’s left of Britain’s wilderness.

And a bit like the perpetrators of terrible sixties architecture now, no one’s going to be able to come up with a satisfactory answer because, quite simply, there isn’t one: wind turbines are a bad idea in almost every way imaginable.

They don’t work when there’s no wind.

They don’t work when it’s too windy.

They produce so little power – and so unreliably and erratically – that even if you put one on every hill top in Britain you’d still need to rely on nuclear, coal and gas-generated electricity for your main source of energy.

They chew up flying wildlife and scare horses.

They produce a subsonic hum which drives you mad if you’re downwind of them.

They turn pristine landscape into Teletubby-style horror visions.

They destroy property values.

They steal light.

They’re visible for miles around so that just when you’re thinking you’ve got away from it all you’re reminded of man’s grim presence by the whirling white shapes on the horizon.

They’re environmentally damaging: their massive concrete bases alone requiring enough concrete to fill two Olympic-size swimming pools; then there’s the access roads that have to be built through the unspoilt landscape to put them up in the first place.

They’re twice as expensive as conventionally-produced electricity.

They make you feel a bit queasy, especially the three-bladed ones whose asymmetry is disturbing.

To supply the equivalent output of one nuclear power station you’d need a wind farm the size of Greater Manchester.

When I wrote all this a couple of years ago in How To Be Right, my polemical A to Z of everything wrong with Blair’s and Brown’s Britain, I did think I was erring slightly towards the Dystopian.

The “wind turbines” entry was more of a warning of the awful things that could go wrong if the more extreme eco-nutters got their way and the government completely lost its head. Not even in my darkest moments did I imagine that this nightmare vision would come true.

Why? Well, apart from anything else, because the British landscape is our greatest asset, the thing that makes so proud to have been born here and to live here. In July, I’ll be walking with my family in the near-deserted hills of the Welsh Borders; in late August, I’ll be in Scotland wandering amid the purple heather of the Highlands; in October, the coastal path round Prawle Point and Bolt Head. I love swimming in burns, rock pools, rivers, beneath waterfalls, in the sea off South Dorset.  I count it one of my greatest privileges to have been hunting over the stone walls of the Cotswolds and the steep valleys of Exmoor. Few things make me happier or more glad to be alive than the joy that so much of our countryside remains so pristine and stunningly beautiful.

And now, in the name of environmentalism, to serve a cause – CO2 reduction – that will not make the blindest bit of difference to global climate, our Government is destroy this landscape.

Well I suppose they would. They’re Labour and they’ve never really understood the country in the way the Conservatives do.

Or rather, the way the Conservatives did. For, it would seem judging from the comments of Tory environment spokesman Greg Clark that the Conservatives now hate our countryside just as much as Labour does.

To me, it quite beggars belief that a party led by an ex-hunting man representing as beautiful a rural seat as Witney should yet fail to take a stand on this, the gravest environmental threat to Britain in our lifetime. Wind farms are a disaster and an act of lunacy. If the Tories refuse to take a stand against them, they most definitely do not deserve our vote.

Related posts:

  1. We need to talk about wind farms…
  2. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  3. Wind farms kill whales: blubber on the green movement’s hands
  4. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Miliband’s Brilliant Plan to Combat Climate Change: ‘We’ll Export Unicorns to China’

Negative jobs, negative energy

Ed Miliband can't sort out his accent, so what does he have against "climate change"?

Ed Miliband can’t even sort out his accent, so what hope does he have against ‘climate change’? (Photo: PA)

My all-time favourite story from the spot-on news satire website The Daily Mash was the one sending up Alistair Darling’s pitiful attempts to rescue the British economy. Among his brilliant schemes was a plan to breed unicorns and sell them to Chinese millionaires.

“The chancellor would invest public money in up to a dozen unicorn farms across the country churning out thousands of magical horses which would then be vacuum packed and shipped to the Far East.”

“Mr Darling believes that at £250,000 a unicorn the government could have paid back its £120bn of borrowing by the time Star Trek becomes reality.”

So it was with a tremendous sense of deja vu that I heard Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband talking on this morning’s Today programme about his radical and costly new measures to tackle “global warming”.

There are, of course, many things to loathe about Ed Miliband: his wonky, slightly sinister face like a giant egg with a hedgehog on top; the way he says “sure” all the time; his Estuarial inability to pronounce his final consonants; the fact that there’s not just him but his ruddy brother too; the annoying missing “l” in his surname; but definitely the worst is the drivel this grinning eco loon is allowed to spout, largely unchallenged, on “climate change.”

This morning he claimed that by 2015 the miseries of his strict new energy policy will be partly offset by the creation of 400,000 “green jobs”. Oh really? These would presumably be green jobs not unlike the ones in President Obama’s much-cited windpowered economic miracle Spain, would they? The ones that actually destroy 2.2 other jobs for every green job that is created?

Yes, this was the truly depressing conclusion of a study published earlier this year by Dr Gabriel Calzada, a Spanish economics professor at Madrid’s Juan Carlos University.

“The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created. Principally, jobs were lost in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.”

Needless to say his BBC interviewer – the normally sound, but clearly not in this case Ed Stourton – did not call Miliband on this empty claim. Nor did Stourton raise any objection when Miliband produced the still-more-outrageous whopper that the English landscape is in greater danger from climate change than it is from windfarms. (Do read the great Christopher Booker on this subject today)

No it isn’t, Ed. Why do you think, all over the British countryside, there are dozens of campaign groups desperately trying to stop these monstrosities being erected on our beautiful landscape? Why do you think Miliband is now changing the planning laws so that local objections can be more easily overruled? Because no one, except a few politicians and eco-nutters and slippery eco-investors actually wants windfarms ruining Britain. Together with bio-fuels they’re arguably the greatest man-made eco-disaster of the last twenty years.

What a relief it would be to think that when New Labour are finally booted out, and Ed Miliband gets his new job as a mannikin in the shop window of Debenhams, that we’ll finally get a regime talking some sense on climate change.

Sadly, this is not to be. Cameron’s Conservatives are every bit as determined to impose ruinous carbon emissions targets on our groaning economy as Brown’s Socialists. Consider Tory energy spokesman Greg Clark’s pathetic response yesterday to Miliband’s “UK Low Carbon Transition Plan”.

Did Clark talk about the nonsense of green jobs? Did he protest about the 30 per cent rise in our energy prices? Did he point out the economic unfeasibility of trying to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050? Did he talk about the imminent threat of brown-outs because of the energy gap caused by successive governments’ failure to duck the issue of nuclear power?

Er, no. He just said – like the joke Irishman giving directions who says “If you want to get there I wouldn’t start from here” – that “households would end up paying because of the Government’s failure to act soon enough.”

Related posts:

  1. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America
  4. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Honours Quotas: Why All Mustn’t Have Prizes

Including more “X” means less “Y”

I have just come back from my daughter’s school sports day – one of those old fashioned affairs where winners are allowed to win and losers to lose – and the delight on the children’s faces as they competed viciously, desperately and passionately with one another in everything from the tug of war to the three-legged race was a joy to behold.

But are we sure he's African/Chinese/female or disabled enough?

But are we sure he’s African/Chinese/female or disabled enough?

Winning matters. Politically correct games where everyone wins in order to spare the losers the pain of losing are no fun at all. Children instinctively understand this, even if “Progressive” adults do not. If Girl was at one of those ghastly schools with one of those right-on head teachers who bans competitive sports in the name of “fairness”, I think I should be inclined to complain to the governors for permitting such wanton cruelty. Not only does it discriminate against all the athletically-gifted kids by denying them the chance to shine. But it also instills in children the ludicrous idea that life is fair, and non-competitive, and feeling-nurturing, and loser-friendly, thus setting them up nicely to be eaten alive when they encounter the real world.

But just when one or two brave state schools – such as my daughter’s splendid Church of England Primary – have started to take a stand against this nonsense, it seems that our increasingly risible government is determined to spread its ludicrous all-shall-have-prizes ethos still further across our poisoned realm.

According to yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph:

“The Cabinet Office, which oversees the honours process, has told Whitehall departments submitting nominations to ensure that their lists include more female and non-white candidates.”

“The instruction was disclosed in a letter seen by The Sunday Telegraph in which Hayley Harris, the Deputy Honours Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, demanded that more than half of all local government candidates put forward for next year’s Queen’s Birthday Honours must be women.”

Let’s pause just a moment, shall we, to have a quick vomit that there actually exists in the Government a position called “Deputy Honours Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government”, that she has power and that, through our taxes, we are paying for her utterly pointless work. Right, now let us carry on. The story continues:

“In her letter, sent to John Ransford, the chief executive of the Local Government Association, Mrs Harris also made clear that there should be more candidates from two specific ethnic groups, “Black African” and “Chinese”, which had allegedly been “under represented” in the past.

“The continuing disproportionate shortfall in the number of female candidates is a matter of serious concern,” she wrote on June 18.

“It is not acceptable that the number of women put forward for honours from all sources is so far below the proportion in society as a whole.”

“This is a matter which we are expected to address this round and in future rounds by ensuring that 55 per cent of our candidates put forward to the Cabinet Office are women.”

Presumably the Government will now be remedying this appalling imbalance by sending out Honours staff – perhaps even Mrs Harris herself – to hang out at ethnically-favoured areas such as Brixton market with bags of OBEs, knighthoods and such like. Perhaps they could even open a stall.

“Honours! Honours! Come and get your honours. No talent necessary. How about you sir. Yes, sir – no not you with the dreadlocks and red gold and green woollie hat, you’re the wrong kind of black – you sir, with the fetching tribal scars, are you from Africa, by any chance?”

As a white, middle-class male – about the most-discriminated-against group in Britain – I naturally resent this policy quite a bit. But not nearly as much as I’d resent it were I a female and/or black African and/or Chinese person who’d been given an honour in the last few years.

There these people were  imagining that they’d been given their awards for some signal and exemplary service to the nation. And now, suddenly, in the name of “equality” and “fairness”, they are effectively being told by the State – “Sorry, but we consider you slightly, manky second-rate citizens who aren’t really capable of winning prizes on your own merit. So we’ve decided to make you feel better about your inadequacies by skewing the system in your favour.”

If I were in these people’s shoes, I think I’d be inclined to hand back my MBE or CBE or whatever in protest. If a prize is worth winning, it’s worth winning on merit and merit alone. Which is why I have absolutely no hesitation in awarding this week’s coveted Prize Prat Award to – yes let’s pass that sickbag one more time – the Deputy Honours Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Related posts:

  1. Women are great: they don’t need quotas
  2. Isn’t Black History Month a bit racist?
  3. Only in America…..
  4. Burqa ban: What Barack Obama could learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Obama: When All Else Fails, Blame Dubya and the CIA

Did you hear about the captured Russian gunship pilot shot down in Eighties Afghanistan? (If you’re of a squeamish disposition, I’d skip to the next par). First they gave him tea; then they gave him heroin, then they chopped his foot off, then they raped him; then, once he’d recovered from the first amputation – nurtured of course by traditional Pashtun hospitality – they raped him some more, before chopping off another of his limbs. And so on – nice, nasty, nice, nasty – until they had tired of their plaything and granted him the mercy of death.

The only detail of that true story that I’m not sure I’ve got exactly right is when they administered the heroin: was it before or after the amputations? But I don’t think anyone familiar with Afghanistan would doubt its essential veracity. Similar stories come out of Helmand every day: girls having acid thrown in their faces for attending school; school teachers being hung, drawn and quartered or crucified for having the temerity to teach girls or disobey the Taliban. It’s just how the Afghans are: tough on human rights; tough on the causes of human rights; definitely not the kind of people you’d ask to babysit your kitten while you were away on your summer hols.

President Obama: palpably upset and concerned at being forced, much against his will, to blame his predecessor for EVERYTHING.

So how come this message appears completely to have eluded the current President of the USA? Has none of his advisors read Kipling? Or the first Flashman book? Or heard or read a single thing about Afghanistan or the bad stuff that happens there? Only President Obama appears to have got it into his head that what the Afghans are really crying out for now to make everything better is for the US to launch an inquiry into how the human rights of certain captured Taliban might have been abused in November 2001 by an Afghan warlord Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum. To whit, he killed the lot of them – 100s, if not 1000s and buried them in a mass grave.

Now, POTUS has promised to launch a full investigation into the incident – for reasons of course which have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dostum was on the payroll of the CIA and therefore, by extension, of the Evil Bush Administration. (Hat Tip: Jake Tapper)

“If it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that,” said Obama.

Really? Of course, one is saddened by the terrible fate administered to those peace-loving Taliban by the horrid Gen Dostum; of course, it is a grievous pity that they are no longer around to blow American, British and Canadian boys to pieces with IEDs or throw acid at schoolgirls or mutilate schoolteachers. Yes, it goes without saying that this is not the way Western forces ought ever to be encouraged to treat their prisoners.

But the point surely here is that these prisoners weren’t in the hands of Western forces. They were in the hands of an Afghan general who found an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. And isn’t this, after all, the thing the Allied coalition is supposed to be encouraging in Afghanistan right now? We have, after all, come to accept after eight years of near-fruitless slog that we’re not going to win total military victory, let alone transform Afghanistan into a Western-style democracy. So where’s all this nonsense suddenly coming from that the US’s most urgent priority there is to investigate the killing of Taliban  by a non-American in the chaos and mayhem immediately following 9/11? (And incidentally if killing Taliban – plus sundry innocent civilians – is really such a problem, oughtn’t Obama to be investigating himself?)

Surely it can have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Obama’s poll ratings are falling, his economic policy is failing, unemployment is rising, his universal healthcare plan stalling, his cap n trade running into serious opposition, and his Afghan adventure looking more and more likely to turn into his Vietnam?

Surely a man as palpably noble and decent as Obama would never be so unprincipled as to try – for a second time in three months – to court cheap popularity with his nation’s enemies by undermining his own intelligence services and blaming everything on the CIA and George W Bush?

Related posts:

  1. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!
  2. Where have Action Man’s gonads gone?
  3. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  4. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant. CO2 Is Plant Food

Destructive protectionism

For those of us who still believe in logic, reason, empiricism, rationality, commonsense, economy reality and our inalienable right not to have trillions and trillions of our pounds, euros and dollars flushed down to the toilet to no purpose whatsoever, listening to the Prince of Wales’s pronouncements on “man made global warming” is becoming an increasingly trying experience.

ManBearPig: the world’s deadliest threat. Well, if you’re Prince Charles

In the Spectator today, I interview an Australian geology professor called Ian Plimer whose brilliant new book – Heaven And Earth – is rightly being hailed as the one that is going to nail once and for all the crazy myth that man’s contribution to “climate change” is remotely significant, let alone something we should worry about or waste money trying to stop.

As Professor Plimer observes with characteristic Aussie bluntness: “CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.”

Yet so many of the ruinously expensive policies being formulated on our behalf by everyone from Barack Obama to EU president (and former Maoist) Jose Manuel Barroso to Ed Miliband to (God help us) David Cameron’s Conservatives are based on the scientifically groundless urban myth that human generated CO2 (quite minuscule, anyway, compared with the quantities of greenhouse gases volcanoes belch or even cows fart) is the most dangerous substance on earth.

Prince Charles is fond of telling us that we only have 100 months left to save the earth. (Apparently down to 96 now, or so he claimed in his recent Dimbleby lecture). But I’d say the time we have left to save the world is quite significantly less than that. Not from the perfectly natural process of climate change, of course, but the far far greater threat of climate change alarmism.

Unless those of us with more than half a brain cell unite and act soon, the earth is going to fall prey to  the most destructive, expensive, suicidally pointless taxation and regulation and protectionism in global economic history. We simply cannot afford any longer to allow the likes of the Prince Of Wales, Al Gore, NASA activist James Hansen, Lord Stern and their amen corner in the mainstream media to go on pushing their ludicrous scare story unchallenged.

Right now, out there in the real world, are numerous genuine ecological challenges that urgently need addressing: the decline of fish (thanks European Union fisheries policy!); pollution; diminishing water tables; deforestation; overpopulation; and the great eco-disaster that are bio-fuels. The Quixotic quest to arrest “climate change” – something that has been happening for 4,567 million years regardless of man’s input – is a silly and expensive distraction.

What’s particularly galling about the most outspoken supporters of climate change taxation and regulation is that many of them either are rich enough not to be affected by it or – worse – stand to make vast fortunes as a result of it.

The Prince of Wales is a case in point. When you’re on a salary of £18 million, as he is, you’re probably not going to be bothered overmuch by tiny details such as your gas and electricity bills doubling because of green taxes on carbon emissions. You’re not even going to mind, that much, that if Barack Obama’s new $7.4 trillion cap and trade tax on carbon emissions is introduced the global economic recovery is going to be set by a generation. Indeed, it’s probably very much in the Prince’s interests that we should all be rendered so poor that we can’t even afford to run our cars any more. It will leave Britain’s roads free for Charlie to pootle about as freely as he wishes in his bio-ethanol-powered Aston Martin.

Poop! Poop!

Related posts:

  1. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  2. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  3. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  4. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Why Would Anyone Want to Vote Tory? (Pt 1)

At dinner the other night with a leading conservative thinker, I asked the question many of us have been pondering more and more worriedly of late. “Can you give me one single positive reason why any true Tory should vote Conservative at the next election?”

My friend thought for a while and then said: “Michael Gove.”

“Yeah, yeah, apart from Michael Gove,” I said, reminding my conservative chum that this was almost as obvious and pat an answer as “Well they could hardly be any worse than Gordon Brown.”

At which point my friend was stumped. Like me, he’s a natural Tory, truly, madly desperate for a Conservative government to get into power and act according to true Conservative principles: limited government, low taxes, liberty, etc. Also like me, he sees no sign whatsoever that the current Opposition has any understanding of what true Conservative principles might possibly be.

Even the Gove point is moot, I fear. I have tremendous respect for the Tories’ shadow schools secretary. He’s super bright, indefatigably (and naturally) charming, sound on a lot of issues that matter (Islamism, for example, as you’ll see if you read his incisive Fahrenheit 7/7) and, unlike most of Dave Cameron’s inner circle, he was not born to the purple. As the adopted son of a decent, hard-working, but by no means wealthy Scots couple who made tremendous sacrifices to give him a good education, Gove understands far better than any wallpaper-heir or landed Old Etonian can the case against excessive taxation and intrusive government.

Despite my reservations, if the Tories were to come clean now and say: “Look, we might as well admit it. We’re a bunch of neo-Blairite water-treaders who won’t do anyting to undo any of the damage wreaked by New Labour, except in one area. Education. By the end of our term of office, you shall have schools and universities to which – for little or no money – you will not be at all embarrassed to send your children,” I still think I might just be persuaded to vote for them.

So why – given that Gove is the shadow secretary responsible for education, and given that he is always speaking up for higher standards and against dumbing down – do I remain unconvinced by his supposedly bold new plans for sweeping ’supply-side’ reform on the Swedish model?

Because even when they’re trying to be tough and radical, Cameroon’s Tories are so irrevocably craven and lightweight they just can’t help pulling their punches. No, I don’t necessarily believe the stories in one of the paper’s yesterday that the Tories education policy is “in disarray” – for the Ed Balls spin machine is a powerful and terrifying thing. But I do believe if you’re going to come up with a bold new plan, as Gove has, to encourage the creation round Britain of thousands of new schools, you’re shooting yourself in the foot right from the off if you announce that you don’t want any private operators making money out of it.

What, in the name of Margaret Thatcher (or Adam Smith if you prefer), is wrong with making a profit? How, pray, will anyone be persuaded to go to the hassle and expense and risk of establishing a new school if the only reward is their own virtue? Is there any more effective way to kill a policy before it has even begun than to hedge it with rules which, let’s face it, have absolutely nothing to do with giving our children a better quality of education, only with the Tories’ increasingly ridiculous terror of being seen in any way to come across like enthusiasts of the capitalist system.

You’ll notice the “Pt 1″ in the headline. That’s because I’ve a nasty feeling that for stories about the inexorable decline of ideological conservatism in Britain, Dave Cameron’s Tories are going to be the gift that goes on giving.

Related posts:

  1. Gove v Humphrys: reason enough to vote Conservative
  2. Why would anyone want to vote Tory? (pt II)
  3. Jamie’s Nightmare School
  4. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

City Bonuses Make a Comeback but Recession Never Left

June 28, 2009

‘Bab!” is the new toast in the City champagne bars. That’s banker-speak for “Bonuses are back.”

Perhaps you may have read about it in the papers. “Oh, good,” you’ll have gone, as you cancelled your annual holiday in the Med, scrapped the children’s riding and judo lessons and changed the mince on your grocery order from Premium Aberdeen Angus to Budget Extra Fat and Donkey Gristle.

“I’ve been feeling the pinch quite a bit this year,” you’ll continue, “what with the negative equity and losing my job and the sky-rocketing bills. So how utterly marvellous to know that Henry Red-Braces in the big house up the road can still fund his heli-skiing jaunt to the glaciers of the Andes.”

If this is starting to sound like the sort of rant you’d more usually associate with the Guardian, there are a couple of things I want to make clear. First, some of my best friends are bankers – my little brother, too – and by no means do I hate any of them so much that I wish them to die in agony, covered in pustular sores. I fully recognise that they have virtually no social life; that they work long hours; and that, yes, they do deserve some reasonable level of compensation for their arid, joyless toiling.

Second, I am not an anti-capitalist. Au contraire. It is my firm belief that one of the very worst things to emerge from the financial crisis is the glib, poisonous, Leftist, Franco-German canard that somehow “capitalism is to blame”. If the capitalist system had been left to its own devices, we’d all be out of this mess by now. Heavy-handed government intervention (mortgages for the unsuitable; artificially low interest rates; bail-outs etc) has much more to do with it than Gordon Gekko-approved greed.

But just because all this is so, it doesn’t let bankers off the hook entirely. Sure, they didn’t bring about this new Great Depression, but they did gleefully devise all those tricksy financial instruments that have made the crisis so long and so deep. They all knew that the system had grown so warped and inflated that it was little more than some giant Ponzi scheme. And still none of them had the moral courage to blow the whistle; still they kept their snouts in the trough.

So what, we might reasonably ask, has so dramatically changed in the City that these troughers have earned the right to be paid huge bonuses again? Have the banks now paid back all that bail-out money that propelled us into the ranks of the world’s most indebted economies? Nope – nor will they do so for many years to come.

Is the pool of available City talent now so small that only by offering the most insane bonuses can any banks be sure of securing decent staff? Hardly. Are the green shoots of recovery bursting forth with such vigour that only a fool would fail to bet on massive growth by 2011? No, no and thrice no. In fact, with a modest 50p spread bet, which I reckon will make me £500 by Christmas, I’m banking on quite the opposite.

Look at the shops. Look what’s happening to your friends. Does anything at all in your realm of experience suggest the recession is even halfway over? Of course not. The only place those green shoots exist is in the bankers’ imaginations.

How did they get there? Well, in order to make money, bankers need extreme peaks and troughs, and if those peaks can only be made by manipulating the markets and telling the odd porkie pie, that is what a greedy pig
must do. When – and only when – a real recovery begins, the bankers will start to earn their bonuses. Until then, they should starve like the rest of us.

Related posts:

  1. Dizzee Rascal speaks up for the City. Probably.
  2. If ever we get out of this economic mess, it’ll be thanks to City AM – not the Financial Times
  3. If I could go back in time to my Oxford days, I’d warn myself against idolising Cameron
  4. Climategate: this is our Berlin Wall moment!

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Cap and Trade: Which Part of ‘We Can’t Afford It’ Doesn’t Obama Understand?

Obama's crazy new Bill will do nothing to stop this

But they still don’t produce as much hot air as Al Gore…

Wakey wakey America: nightmare day is here. The day when the House of Representatives votes on probably the most pointless, damaging, wrong-headed and suicidally dumb piece of legislation since…

Well I was going to say Prohibition, but even Prohibition had a certain twisted logic to it. (You know: “Daddy, why does your breath smell funny? Why do you keep hitting Mom? Why’s there no money for food again this week?” etc. I’m not saying I’m persuaded by this argument but at least you can concede the Temperance movement had one).

So that must mean then that the Climate Bill – aka Waxman-Markey after the two, rather sinister-looking representatives who wrote it – being pushed through the House today is quite simply the worst piece of US legislation in living memory. And possibly beyond.

Why? Well at the cost of the biggest tax increase in American history, it will achieve precisely zilch.

(Actually, not quite zilch. There are one or two people who are going to be doing very nicely out of it, from the Libtard apparatchiks and Algore fellow travellers who’ve invested in the right carbon-trading companies to all those vested interests in the Mid-West who have been bought off with the inevitable pork barrelling concessions designed to ease the bill’s awkward passage.)

According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation the Waxman-Markey bill –  whose centrepiece is a tax on carbon emissions, often known as “cap and trade” because it sounds innocuous and no one understands what it means – will by 2035 reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. (That’s more than 6 times the projected cost of President Obama’s ENTIRE universal healthcare programme).

But the misery doesn’t end there:

“In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million.”

“Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500.”

And how exactly will the world benefit from this swingeing tax on the stuff every one of us breathes out every minute of day?

“According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.”

There’s ‘no debate on carbon pollution’ jeopardizing the planet, claims President Obama, who clearly gets all his information from the liberal broadcast media and the dead tree press, both of which for reasons known only to themselves cleave to the Al Gore “Anthropogenic Global Warming” meme like cognitive dissonant rats to a sinking ship.

Out here in the real world, meanwhile, there are fewer and fewer of us who want any more of their money of wasted on this bizarre eco-fascist fantasy. It was an exciting and novel distraction in the good old days when we still felt rich and a bit guilty for being rich and wanted to devise new ways of punishing ourselves for our (perceived) eco sins. But not any more. We haven’t the money to bribe the Third World to reduce its carbon emissions; nor are our economies nearly strong enough to absorb the burden of green taxation and zealous  and intrusive green legislation.

What’s more, the science is increasingly with us. Today I shall be praying with all my heart that Waxman-Markey dies the death it so fully deserves. So too will everyone else in the world who values liberty, a healthy global economy and plain common sense.

Enough ManBearPig already! The beast must be slain!

Related posts:

  1. Bloody marvellous Aussies kill carbon emissions bill
  2. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  3. Welcome to the New World Order
  4. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Good Pop Is about Sex or Authenticity: Jacko Had Neither

Michael Jackson nearly killed me once. It was a dark and stormy night and I was motorcycling back on the M4 to London having been sent to cover one of his excruciating “Heal the World” concerts in Cardiff, when all of a sudden I was blown by a gust of wind across the rainswept carriageway into the path of a mighty pantechnicon.

“Ohmygod!” I remember thinking to myself in those slow-motion seconds. “Is it really my fate to be killed in so cruel and random a way? Not after a concert by Radiohead or Led Zeppelin but by the pop star I loathe more than any in the world: Whacko bloody Jacko!”

Yes, I know it’s sad that that the poor, troubled man has gone so young. But do please let’s get a sense of perspective. Sure, he was nimble on his pins. Sure, that werewolf video was really quite scary for its time. Sure, he sold millions of records. But the fact still remains that the self- styled “King of Pop” was responsible for some of the most excruciatingly dreadful music in history.

And some of the worst lyrics too. “Sunshine. Moonshine. Good Times. Boogie”. Why on Earth would anyone ever have thought to have blamed such very odd things for anything? “I’m bad. I’m really, really bad.” No you’re not. You’re a wuss. “Heal the world. Make it a better place for you and for me.” No! Please!

The first time I encountered him I would have been about 10. That was when my mother bought a soppy single called One Day in Your Life.

(to read more, click here)

Note: Link permanently broken.

Related posts:

  1. Oasis: just how rubbish were they?
  2. London riots: Cameron has learned nothing, will do nothing
  3. Sir David King condemns green scaremongering; Herod condemns child abuse; Osama Bin Laden condemns Islamist terrorism; etc
  4. Rodney King saved my life

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Conservative Blacks Are Fed up with Being Patronised by Liberals and Bureaucrats

A friend who teaches at an old-fashioned Sussex boarding school has a zero-tolerance approach to racism. The moment he hears one of the foreign boys claiming to be a victim of it, that’s them chucked out of the class for the rest of the lesson. ‘Well I’m sorry,’ says my friend Duncan, quite unapologetically. ‘But they’re bright kids and they’re enjoying the best education money can buy in a multi-ethnic school where racism just isn’t an issue. I think it’s an absolute bloody outrage that they should try that line…’
Had he been working in the state sector, of course, he would be out of his job by now. Which is an awful pity because people of Duncan’s courage and robust convictions are what the world sorely needs. That overused ‘r’ word has done more to stifle open political debate and poison social cohesion than perhaps any other word in the English language. It’s time we stamped on it and stamped on it hard. But how? To appreciate the scale of the problem, you only had to observe the way an incident involving attacks by locals on over 100 Romanians in Belfast was reported last week. What wasn’t at all clear from any of the initial reports — neither in the BBC, nor, more surprisingly in the right-leaning newspapers — was what had brought the natives of Belfast to this unfortunate pass. Other than their disgusting, abominable and thoroughly to-be-condemned racism, that is.

I first heard the story myself on the Today programme. In the news report, the victims were all carefully described as Romanians, with no clue offered as to their ethno-cultural identity. But then, a Belfast race-relations worker interviewed by the BBC let the cat out of the bag by referring to them more accurately as ‘Roma’. At which point, I swore a lot at my radio then blogged about it for the Daily Telegraph. My main complaint was that we listeners were being treated here like children: children who could not be trusted to be told the whole truth lest they reach the ‘wrong’ conclusions.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. What the BBC didn’t want you to know about the Belfast ‘Romanians’
  2. The Right to Swear is Integral to Being a True Conservative
  3. The Tory test that all Conservative candidates should pass
  4. The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations