Architectural magazine’s editor questions Global Warming: hysteria – James Delingpole

November 18, 2009

My heroine of the week is Amanda Baillieu, editor of architects’ trade journal Building Design. She noticed that when Environment Secretary Hillary Benn gave a talk at the Royal Institute of British Architects the other day on the looming peril of ManBearPig, hardly anyone bothered to turn up.

In an extremely brave editorial entitled “Is Global Warming Hot Air?” she speculated that the reason may have been because even architects are getting tired of listening to hysterical drivel about impending eco-doom and the so-called “consensus” on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In fact, you’d be forgiven for not knowing there is a debate because it’s certainly discouraged by the RIBA, whose successive presidents have said that fighting climate change is the biggest challenge facing the profession.

While there’s no argument that natural resources such as water need to be conserved and low-energy buildings make sense, the scientific evidence has now shifted enough to warrant a more questioning position on climate change.

The editorial was brave because it’s still extremely rare for any editor in the mainstream media to question the prevailing orthodoxy on ManBearPig. Braver still because it is a known fact that 99.82 per cent of all architects (not my mates the Lahiffs, I don’t think, but pretty much all the others) are achingly worthy, politically correct, Big-State-endorsing toadies. (They have to be because Government projects are where all the money is).

The response has been much more mixed than you might imagine. Here are some of the more positive responses:

There are lots of people out there, including droves of architects, who take on the accepted view and know absolutely nothing about global warming, so why should they silence debate on the basis that the person who disagrees also doesn’t know. This is just a new religion where heretics are to be silenced.

Regrettably and incorrectly sustainability/energy conservation as the sole cause of global warming has become the new “sacred cow” which is only very rarely questioned given the risk of general derision.

The environmental movement is a beating stick used by governments. All you believers will be in for quite the shock when you cannot afford to turn on the heating or even have a drink of water, because you cannot afford it.

Excitingly, it has also led to a cat-fight, of sorts, with a female columnist from rival publication Architects’ Journal. Hattie Harman – the AJ’s Sustainability Editor, no less – takes Baillieu apart for her incorrect thinking.

Hattie intones (at least, I’m assuming she intones: her picture – redolent of a Greater London Council Wimmin’s Issues Adviser, C. 1983 – suggests she’s the intoning type):

I am not a climate scientist, but it doesn’t require detailed scientific knowledge to see that we are living beyond our means. I applaud the RIBA’s position on climate change and wish that more of the profession would heed its wake-up call. I would even say that the RIBA has been slow to champion the green agenda. Under Sunand Prasad, it endorsed the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence framework, published its climate change toolkits and launched the speaker series, of which secretary of state for environment Hilary Benn was part.

The best bit, though, is the more-in-sorrow-than-anger Spartist ticking off Hattie administers at the end:

Journalistic endeavour would be better spent showcasing pioneering projects and disseminating best practice. It’s alarming to see a widely-read journal do otherwise.

Baillieu’s response? Why, only a challenge to a naked mud-wrestling match, You Tube footage of which it is my pleasure to show you via the following link:

Nah, not really. What Baillieu actually says is:

I’m delighted that the AJ is using its pages to publicise an article in a rival magazine – a first I think. Despite the line trotted out by among others the Green Building Council that there is no debate, there clearly is one otherwise why would the AJ be running with it?

Ooh! Claws out! Over to you, Hattie!

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care
  3. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

2 Responses to “Architectural magazine’s editor questions Global Warming: hysteria”

  1. Aubrey Meyer says:November 18, 2009 at 4:42 pmDoes poor attendance at Benn’s RIBA speech really disprove global warming/climate change? If – after twenty years – the whole matter was so easily resolved, we’d all be spared this endless to-and-fro.

    Anyway Hattie said what she said and Amanda is welcome to say what she said about that, but the state-of-play regarding the Contraction and Convergence [C&C] programme that Hattie mentioned had been adopted by RIBA is as follows: –

    The UK Government has adopted C&C, but at rates that are ‘too slow’ to give 50:50 odds for avoiding more an overall two degrees Celsius temperature rise globally, so their position should be examined in the light of the following points: –

    1. We are told that the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change will not achieve a Climate-Deal in December, only a political understanding of the need to keep us within an overall maximum 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.

    2. Last week’s IMECHE Climate Change Report stated, “The [UK] Government’s targets and budgets have been set using a top-down approach based on the principle of contraction and convergence” adding that “IMECHE supports the C&C Principle.”

    3. The Archbishop of Canterbury invited the TUC this week to support, “the Contraction and Convergence proposals [as] the best-known and most structurally simple of these, [saying] it would be a major step to hear some endorsement of them from a body such as this.”

    4. The Climate Change Committee’s [CCC’s] report stated that it and the Climate Act it are based on GCI’s C&C proposal and are in the words of Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC], “strong support for what Global Commons Institute [GCI] has been saying.” [Evidence given by to the [EAC] in February this year] and that

    5. For organising and sharing the full-term emissions-contraction-event needed to bring us to UNFCCC-compliance, “Converging to equal per capita entitlements globally is the only option that is doable and fair” and agreeing that, [crucially]

    6. “if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that.” [Response given by Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC] to the [ECCC] in March this year].

    7. Noting this further support and following these logical arguments and that the UKMO Hadley Centre has now confirmed in writing to GCI that [as shown in the images at the link below] that: –

    [a] the CCC’s odds are worse than 50:50 for keeping within the stated maximum of a 2 degrees overall temperature rise with their Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario and that

    [b] the odds are better than 50:50 for keeping within a maximum 2 degrees with GCI’s accelerated Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario.

    [c] see: –

    8. . . . the real question is, does the Government now agree with positions taken by the UKMO, Lord Adair Turner and the analysis that to keep within the 2 degrees overall temperature rise, the rate of contraction needs to be accelerated to something like an 80% cut in emissions globally for reasons of urgency and that therefore the rate of convergence needs to be accelerated relative to that to something like 2020 or 2030 for reasons of equity.

    Getting an answer from them on *that* – now that would be interesting.

    The extent of C&C support included here did follow much questioning and much to-and-fro: –

    LONDON E17 4SH

  2. MARC says:November 19, 2009 at 5:57 pmHattie HARMAN?? Surely not??? A relative perhaps??? But no… Too easy surely???

How Al Gore’s amen corner Newsweek censored his critics – James Delingpole

November 18, 2009

Today I’m off on the Eurostar to Brussels (”a carbon neutral journey” it boasts on my ticket – which rather makes me wish I were flying instead) to speak at the European Parliament on Climate Change.

No, don’t worry. The Goreistas haven’t got to me. It’s a sceptics’ conference – Have Humans Changed Climate? – being staged tomorrow by Tory MEP Roger Helmer. Many of my science and eco-heroes will be there, including Patrick Moore (the co-founder of Greenpeace who subsequently bailed when the charity turned far too red), Prof Fred Singer (who’ll be talking on Can We Trust The IPCC?) and Professor Ross McKitrick (who famously helped expose the notorious Hockey Stick curve).

I’ll be there to provide comedy value and also to talk about the irresponsibility of the mainstream media in spreading climate-change fear and largely suppressing any counter-argument in the great AGW debate.

There’s a good example of this from the latest Newsweek, which recently ran a cover story on Al Gore billing him as The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man.  The majority of letters it received in response – 74 per cent – were critical, says Tim Graham at Newsbusters. But Newsweek didn’t run one of them; only letters in support of Gore.

The worst was from war veteran Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida:

Propaganda by global-warming skeptics and deniers reminds me of 1944, when as an Army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pajamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today’s anti–science propaganda.

Gosh I do hope they got their fact checkers onto that one. Otherwise, I’d suspect that this was the concoction of some young eco-freak who wasn’t even born in ‘44 using the Holocaust and the respect we grant war veterans to make a cheap political point.

Newsweek’s censorship doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Its what the MSM generally does with anti-AGW stories – despite the fact that the majority of the public is now sceptical. Problem is, there are lot of people out there – media owners, environmental correspondents, carbon traders, big businessmen – who for a range of reasons from the emotional to the financial simply cannot afford to abandon their blind faith in ManBearPig no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary.

We climate change sceptics would have lost the battle long ago had it not been for the happy advent of the internet. It’s in the Blogosphere (and a few odd MSM strongholds such as The Wall Street Journal and Christopher Booker’s Sunday Telegraph column) where all the counterarguments are being disseminated.

And despite what Professor Ian Plimer said in his Spectator lecture last week, this is a war we’re fighting. Plimer was talking about how the language of war had no place in science because it is simply a process of discovery, with one hypothesis being replaced by another. I’d agree with this if I thought science was the only factor in the global warming debate, but sadly it ain’t. It’s at least as much about politics, money, economics, horse-trading, personalities and perhaps above all about propaganda, ranging from responsible reporting to cheap shots about the enormous, badger-esque vastness of The Hon. Sir Jonathan Porritt’s rear end. That’s where scumbags like me come in. It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it. For the children, you understand.

Related posts:

  1. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  2. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  3. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
  4. Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’


59 per cent of UK population Are ‘Village Idiots’ Thunders The Times

Less than half the British population still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, says a new survey commissioned by The Times.

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

Even more interesting than the result, though, is the Thunderer’s appalled reaction. In a leader that might have been easily have been written by the Great Moonbat himself, the Times quite simply refuses to accept that the growing band of sceptics may have a point. Instead, it accuses these ‘deniers’ of being idiots:

It is possible that the collective expertise of brilliant scientists could be wrong. The best minds in the world once held a geocentric theory of the solar system. Before the discovery of sub-atomic particles they believed that everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Right up to the 19th century, serious scientists wrote recipe books for making animals. But no previous process of scientific trial, error and progress has ever overturned such a well-attested thesis. Lord Rees has reminded us that we now live in a global village and it is, he pointed out, probably inevitable that there will be some global village idiots.

The Times’s approach is not unlike that of a Marxist theorist berating the bourgeoisie for their “false consciousness”; or indeed, a Eurocrat deciding that when sovereign nations keep voting “No” in Euro referendums it doesn’t mean that the EU is an oppressive and unpopular construct but that the voters need working on a bit harder so that they come to the correct “Yes” conclusion next time. It is, in fact, another perfect case of what Jonah Goldberg calls Liberal Fascism.

It is also an example of just how increasingly out-of-touch the MSM is with the views of the wider reading world. Recently, the Times launched a poster campaign boasting that it offered more extensive eco coverage than any other newspaper. Some of the claims made on these posters – such as the one about the North East passage being used as a commercial shipping route for the first time (when actually it has been used since 1934) – have been shot down by the excellent Andrew Orlowski on The Register.

But even if these claims were true, are wall-to-wall horror stories about impending man-made eco-doom really what readers of the quality newspapers want to read these days? My suspicion is not. I’m presuming that the audience which reads and comments on blogs isn’t totally different from the one that reads newspapers in print form. And if that’s the case, then the MSM’s obsession with AGW is looking increasingly out of date.

If you don’t believe me, check out the comments below one of George Monbiot’s columns, or indeed, either of the two Times articles listed above. Commenters who take the Al-Gore-approved line are vastly outnumbered by commenters who believe the whole AGW thing is a load of crock.

And it will take a bit more than bullying accusations that they’re “idiots”, I suspect, to swing them round.


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

2 Responses to “59 per cent of UK population are ‘village idiots’ thunders The Times”

  1. Lauren says:November 17, 2009 at 2:46 amHey James,Loved your newest post about the whole Global Warming issue there in the UK.I found your site, because I clicked on one of your articles about Obama and the whole Nobel Peace prize issue, and I was like “this is so awesome”. It had humor in it, but it was the truth, too, and I instantly became a fan.I’ll definitely be subscribing.

    I’ll be checking out your books as well. Hopefully I can eventually purchase them online if they’re not in a book store here.

    Please keep on writing.

    I’ll keep reading.

    All the best,


  2. Sebaneau says:February 5, 2010 at 2:50 amAnd four days later, the Climategate files were released on the Internet…

Is Edward McMillan-Scott the Most Tedious, Annoying and Ghastly Member in the Entire Euro Parliament?

Obviously, he faces some pretty stiff competition. But I surely can’t be the only one being driven to distraction by this potato-faced turncoat’s nuts-achingly tedious appearances every other day in the Guardian or on the BBC, reminding us yet again in relentless boring detail what a man of high principle he is for having been booted out of David Cameron’s Conservatives.

Really? I’d say, au contraire, that the expulsion of McMillan-Scott from the Tory party represents possibly Cameron’s finest hour so far. Of course the creep had to go. He was the man who did most to promulgate the canard that the Tories’ European ally Michal Kaminski was an anti-Semite – a charge Ed Miliband and the left-liberal media naturally seized on with alacrity. Pity Poland’s chief Rabbi (who happens to be Jewish) had to go and ruin the story by rising to Kaminski’s defence.

There’s nothing New Labour, the BBC and the Guardian like quite so much as a Tory (or ex-Tory, they’re not picky) attacking his party from the Europhile left. Just look at the reverence with which the likes of Chris Patten, Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke are treated whenever they appear on the Today programmes: in one bound, they are transformed from decreasingly relevant has-beens from the outer regions of the Tory party’s total-sell-out, bien-pensant Whig fringe into still-vitally-important and ineffably-wise grandees, guardians of the holy secret of true and righteous conservatism.

Put it this way: before this concocted anti-Semitism Euro row broke out, had you ever even heard of Edward McMillan-Scott? Me neither.

Related posts:

  1. The Spectator’s editor agrees: the only way out of this ghastly Euro fudge is OUT
  2. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS
  3. The problem with Dave Cameron (No.203)
  4. Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs


As Dirty Harry was in the Seventies, so Harry Brown is today: the movie warning of just how irredeemably stuffed we are | James Delingpole

November 10th, 2009

“I know what you’re thinkin’, punk. You’re thinkin’ did he fire six shots or only five? Now to tell you the truth, I’ve forgotten myself in all this excitement. But bein’ this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and it’ll blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?!”

There’s a reason why those lines from Dirty Harry are some of the most popular and oft-quoted in cinematic history: because we most of us understand that sometimes a .44 Magnum bullet in the middle of the forehead is the only language the bad guys really understand.

How often and how vehemently we understand this depends on the times. In periods of relative abundance and security (even illusory ones, as in the case of the Blair era) we tend generally to take a more accommodating view of criminality, tinged with guilt that maybe we deserve it as a punishment for being too affluent. In times such as now, however, we quickly lose patience with such pussy liberal, we-are-all-to-blame, criminals-are-just-society’s-victims nonsense. We want retribution, harsh, immediate and preferably brain-spattered. We want someone like Dirty Harry or the Charles Bronson character in Michael Winner’s magisterial Death Wish oeuvre. Or Harry Brown.

At least I hope we want someone like Harry Brown. Not having seen the new Michael Caine movie yet I can’t be totally sure. Perhaps – like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, he wusses out at the last minute – but the plot, as related by Matt D’Ancona does sound jolly promising:

The film, compellingly directed by Daniel Barber, is the story of an elderly ex-Marine and widower living on a bleak south London estate whose best friend is slaughtered by drug-soaked hoodies.

Dismayed by the response of the police, Caine’s Harry seeks his own bloody form of justice, embarking on a journey into the hellish world of teenage crime that is both shockingly violent and morally unsparing.

I wish, though, I could share D’Ancona’s optimism that all these horrors are going to be averted thanks to the simultaneously tough and compassionate measures being planned by David Cameron as part of his Iain-Duncan-Smith influenced mending “Broken Britain” policy.

Those who say Cameron is a risk-averse pragmatist should read what he has actually said on the subject of social breakdown: for he has repeatedly pledged nothing less than the systematic repair of the Broken Society, a series of reforms ranging from tougher welfare policies, a transformed education system, a presumption that all convicted of a knife crime will go to jail, support for those who marry, and a range of measures to deal with addiction.

Long term, I would agree that some of this sounds promising. But in the immediate future – the next five years say – only one thing is going to make any significant difference to the levels of violent crime in Britain and that is stiffer prison sentencing. Our coffers are empty. Every government department (apart from Health, obviously) can expect to have its budgets slashed by a good ten or fifteen per cent. Can even the most fervent optimist among Cameron’s Kool-Aid drinkers persuade me that he will find the money needed for the necessary prison-building programme and related staffing costs?

Time, I think, for us all to follow the two Harrys and reach for our .44 Magnums or our old service revolvers. (Except we can’t, of course, thanks to the government’s post-Dunblane only-criminals-shall-be-allowed-to-possess-handguns legislation)

Time, then, to emigrate. But where?


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

One Response to “As Dirty Harry was in the Seventies, so Harry Brown is today: the movie warning of just how irredeemably stuffed we are”

  1. Paul Hogan says:November 11, 2009 at 9:52 amChina. I have lived here for eight years now. A great sense of freedom, (except for some internet access) and a safe place to live.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Hmm. Can’t Imagine What Major Malik Nadal Hasan’s Motivation Could Have Been

Nor it seems can the liberal mainstream media.

I was watching BBC’s Newsnight when the story broke of a killing spree at a Texas military base and instantly wondered – as I’m sure did 99.99 per cent of its other viewers – whether this had anything to do with the Religion of Peace. Then a news update came in that the suspect’s name was ‘Hasan’. But the BBC’s reporter hastened to reassure us that there was “no evidence” to suggest this was an act of “terrorism”. Phew! Perish the unworthy thought.

Even today, the MSM is treading on eggshells regarding the killer’s possible motivation.

Here’s the Independent:

A motive for the shooting was hard to pin down last night. However, there were reports that Hasan, who was trained also in psychiatry and medicine in Bethesda, Maryland, was preparing for deployment to Iraq and was not happy to be going there. He had previously worked at the Walter Reed veterans hospital outside Washington.

Yeah, that would be it. You don’t want to be deployed to a combat zone so you do what any sane officer does under the circumstances. Not resign your commission obviously, but tool yourself up and take out a dozen a so of your unarmed comrades.

The BBC’s website takes a similar line, though it does at least (presumably in breach of all BBC guidelines) cheekily slip in the “M” word:

It is not clear what motivated the attacker, named as 39-year-old military psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

But some reports said the US-born Muslim was unhappy about being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Interesting use of that word “unhappy”, mind.

The Guardian meanwhile, has a brave stab at the ‘trauma-crazed war vet goes tonto’ line, with the help of one of Hasan’s relatives:

One of Hasan’s cousins, Nader Hasan, told reporters the major was dreading going to war, having counselled scores of returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Next to the story, it provides a link to the story of another US veteran – Sergeant John Russell – who did just that, killing 5 of his comrades in May. Unfortunately, as it is forced to admit in a more detailed analysis, can’t have been traumatised by combat because, er….

He was not a soldier returning from deployment in either Iraq or Afghanistan, suffering from stress or combat fatigue. Hasan, although 39 years old, has never served in a war zone.

But that doesn’t stop the Guardian speculating desperately:

Instead, his horror of war came secondhand. He was a psychiatrist who listened to the harrowing stories of his comrades at the Walter Reed Hospital in Washington DC, and latterly at Fort Hood, Texas.

Ah yes that will be it. A bit like passive smoking, the Major was suffering from passive combat stress.

My favourite example of liberal squeamishness, though, comes from the New York Times. Sure towards the bottom of its report, it manages to slip in such not-altogether-irrelevant details as Hasan’s former imam’s claim that he was “very serious about his religion” (so much so that he hadn’t been able to find a sufficiently fundamentalist wife) and that a man with the same name as him was under investigation from the FBI for putting up enthusiastic postings on a Jihadist website about the joys of suicide bombing.

But not before having first blamed those far more likely causes – white racism…

But Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the 39-year-old man accused of Thursday’s mass shooting at Fort Hood, Tex., began having second thoughts about a military career a few years ago after other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim, he told relatives in Virginia.

And, yes, of course, that old favourite – passive combat stress:

Having counseled scores of returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, first at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and more recently at Fort Hood, he knew all too well the terrifying realities of war, said a cousin, Nader Hasan. “He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy,” Mr. Hasan said. “He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there.”

Related posts:

  1. Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State’s big lies
  2. ‘Imagine there’s no shale gas…’
  3. Why are we still feeding our soldiers into the Taliban mincing machine?
  4. Killing Ugandans to save the planet

In the Name of JUSTICE We MUST Send Mark Thatcher to Equatorial Guinea

If we didn’t, it would be a terrible opportunity missed, don’t you think?

Related posts:

  1. Glorious send-up
  2. We need more armed police – but do they have to be like the ones who killed Mark Saunders?
  3. I watched, helpless, as a vicious Staffie ripped up my children’s guinea pigs
  4. Tim Yeo: no headline can do him justice

The Spectator’s Editor Agrees: The Only Way out of This Ghastly Euro Fudge Is OUT

I never tire of reading Fraser Nelson’s political analysis. Not because he’s my new editor at the Spectator and I feel I ought to suck up to him but because, like me, he’s right about everything. But he’s right about everything in a much clever and more insightful way than I am. Mostly I tend to wing it, whereas Fraser totally knows his stuff.

What he has to say in Spectator Coffee House about the Conservatives’ new non-policy on Europe is an essential read.

He starts off quite kindly towards Cameron. Nelson understands as well as anyone that Cameron WILL be our next prime minister and that, a bit like parents and schoolteachers are supposed to do with children, you can’t forever be telling him how rubbish he’s going to be. If you’re going to criticise, first you must say something nice. So Nelson does:

He is right not to promise what he calls a “made-up referendum”, that would accomplish nothing other then vent rage.

Semi-compliment over and done with, Nelson sticks in the knife. Cameron’s promise to renegotiate powers from Brussels is a nonsense, he explains.

What the new Tory package amounts to is a promise to ask the EU very nicely if it will consider handing back a few powers over employment and justice. The answer will be ‘no’. Saying that he might hold a referendum over a wider package of guarantees will carry no weight. By ignoring the Dutch and French ‘no’ votes the EU has shown that it cares not a jot what the little people think. It is a project of the elites, for the elites.

Given that the EU is guaranteed to crush all the Conservatives’ pathetically feeble attempts to claw back tiny bits and bobs of British sovereignty, what is the answer? There is, says Nelson, only one thing that will frighten the EU bullies – a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU at all.

The ‘in or out’ question is seen as an extreme position in Westminster, which shows just how out of touch our political class has become. Brussels’s own polling shows that less than a third of the British public consider our membership of the EU to be ‘a good thing’ — and this was last year when our net contribution to the EU was just £3.1 billion. Next year it will be £7.8 billion (due to the budget deal the would-be President Blair negotiated) and serious questions will be asked as to whether all these regulations are worth the money we pay for them. Recent EU research shows that just 37% think the benefits of EU membership outweigh the costs.

Perhaps some Kool-Aid drinkers out there will be able to tell me what wonderful benefits Britain will get from the EU mafia in return for that £7.8 billion protection money. Perhaps they’ll also be able to explain why, no really, Cameron’s policy announcement on Europe yesterday is as tough as tough can be and will eventually result in all sorts of powers being returned to Britain. The absolute right to decide on the size of the white margins on our postage stamps, maybe. Or the right of parents to chastise their kids lightly on the hand if they have stolen a car. Or the right of employers to sack any staff member found with his hand in till on more than 22 occasions.

Certainly I’m quite sure that whatever Cameron is planning, it will be – as Dan would no doubt say – the terrors of the earth.

Related posts:

  1. Is Edward McMillan-Scott the most tedious, annoying and ghastly member in the entire Euro parliament?
  2. David Cameron skippers Morning Cloud, conducts LSO, etc
  3. Enough eloquent excuses, Dave: the only place for a Conservative Britain in Europe is out
  4. Frank Field for prime minister


Enough Eloquent Eexcuses, Dave: Tthe Only Place for a Conservative Britain in Europe Is Out

Today David Cameron is going to explain plausibly, reasonably and, for all I know, convincingly just why it is that he has no option other than to welsh on his promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. And lots of clever commentators will pile in, as the imminent Lord Finkelstein has already with his characteristic wit, charm and insight, to confirm that, no really, Dave Cameron is as rabidly Eurosceptical as any of us, but that he is also a pragmatist; and that what you have to understand is blah, blah, blahdiblah di blah.

And do you know what? I do not ****ing care. And I’m guessing that an awful lot of you reading this – those that aren’t still drinking the Cameroon Kool-Aid and repeating your consoling mantra about how “look, the important thing is to get Brown out, anything else is just icing on the cake…” – feel exactly the same way.

Is this a childish response? Quite possibly. But what it is, more importantly, is an honest and visceral response. This is the glory of the blogosphere. You don’t have to dress up your argument in supersubtle nuance. You can just cut to the chase and tell it like it is: the European Constitution has stolen British sovereignty; it will make us poorer, more highly regulated, less democratically accountable and less free. You cannot run an effective Conservative government within a Socialist Europe. You can’t. It is simply not possible.

Yeah, sure. If I sat down at a table right now with a bunch of lawyers, and wonks from Policy Exchange, and members of Cameron’s shadow cabinet, I’m quite sure that within the hour I would be won over. “Dear boy,” they’d persuade me in that wonderfully patronising mandarin way, “Of course we feel your pain and your rage. Everything you say is quite true. But in the real world….”

Ah yes, of course. That old saw about politics being the “art of the possible” – the weasel get-out of compromised politicians everywhere. Well I’m sorry, but that to me is not the language of realism. It’s the language of surrender and failure.

The reason I’m interested in politics is because I’m ideological. The reason I’m ideological is because I’m interested in what’s right and what’s wrong, what works and what doesn’t, what ultimately is going to make us all happier, richer and more free.

I still don’t see Cameron’s Pragmatic, Compassionate, but not that Conservative Conservatives offering us any of those things. (Obviously Blair/Brown’s mob didn’t either, but a) one never expected it of them and b) they’re really not worth writing about any more because they are toast). And their nuanced position on Europe – negotiating various opt-outs in certain key areas – is a case in point.

Not only is this mere tinkering at the margins (I notice for example, that they’re not even thinking about trying to extricate us from Europe’s crippling carbon regulations) but it’s most unlikely to work. As David Davis rightly (and rather bravely, given Cameron’s Stalinist line on dissent) argues in the Mail today, the EU “engrenage” machine is grindingly effective at crushing all attempts by constituent members who want to claw back tiny gobbets of sovereignty.

The Europeans are past masters at the permanent negotiation that makes up the federal project. They know all the tricks of isolation, pressure, delay, coalition, vague language, and institutional and judicial expansion.

Here’s the bottom line: until the day when, by whatever means, we can renegotiate our position in Europe so that it is little more than a friendly trading bloc, Britain is screwed.

If Cameron doesn’t understand this – and act upon it – then let us pray he’s replaced sooner rather than later by a leader who does.

Related posts:

  1. Kenneth Clarke is right about Europe
  2. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  3. Be afraid: German ex-Chancellor demands ‘United States of Europe’.
  4. Radio Free Delingpole XVI: buying Britain’s gold back


10 Reasons Why It Won’t Be So Bad When The Tories Get In | James Delingpole

November 4th, 2009


Yes I know, I know. I’m clutching at straws here. The incoming Tory administration will be so disappointing that some of us – me, for example – are already christening it The Great Disappointment (TM).

Cameron’s sell-out on Europe was, of course, the final nail in the coffin. As I’m sure I must have said before – not that you don’t know anyway – a Tory government within a Socialist superstate is a contradiction in terms. Until some Conservative firebrand has the balls to acknowledge this and, more to the point, take over the party leadership, I see no real future for Britain other than a Heathite managed decline.

But there’s so much other nonsense we’re going to have to put up with too: Hundreds of overpromoted women (“Cameron’s Cuties” – eeek! Run away! Run away!) proving themselves every bit as not-up-to-the-job (or indeed the flattering nickname) as Blair’s Babes. An instinctively left-liberal Justice Minister failing to reform the Human Rights Act because he secretly quite sympathises with it (see Joshua Rozenberg in Standpoint). No sense whatsoever on “Climate Change”, nor any semblance of a non-lunatic Energy Policy. Etc.

Don’t worry, though, it’s not all bad. There’s Michael Gove’s education reforms. And, er….



No just teasing. Having racked my brain really hard I’ve now managed to find ten more brilliant reasons why it won’t be so bad if the Tories win the next election.

1.  The Head of the Charity Commission will be out of a job.

2. “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” will be fired.

3. No more will the taxpayer be shovelling £80,000 a year (for a three day week) into the bulging handbag of “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather”

4. “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” will no longer be mockingly known as the “Quango Queen” because she won’t be Queen of any Quango.

5. St Mary’s Calne educated “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” will no longer be able to vent her class-war, Socialist spleen on innocent private schools.

6. “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” will have £80,000 a year less to spend privately educating her kids.

7. “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” will have to throw away all her business cards saying “Dame Suzi Leather; Head; Charity Commission.”

8. “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” will no longer be able to claim perks (travel to London from Exeter, accommodation, etc) which amounted last year to £25,403, just three thousand a year less than it costs annually to put a gel through her alma mater, St Mary’s Calne.

9. Within a few months everyone will have forgotten who “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather” is because she will no longer be in a position to be incredibly annoying and make people’s lives misery.

10. Er. Sorry. I can’t think of any more reasons to vote Conservative. Unless, perhaps, they promise also to disband the Independent Safeguarding Authority and send its chairman Sir Roger Singleton down the salt mines, chained to a work party which also includes Ed Balls, George Monbiot, the Hon Sir Jonathan “Badger Bum” Porritt, and of course the former “Dame” “Suzi” “Leather”. Mind you if they did promise it I’ll bet you anything you like it would never happen. They’re quite slippery that way, Cameron’s Tories.

2 Responses to “10 Reasons Why It Won’t Be So Bad When The Tories Get In”

  1. Annie Walker says:November 4, 2009 at 10:41 amVery funny. I thought that you had stopped sending me articles because I said I’d just cancelled all newspapers, well, apart from The Spectator, The Week, New York Review of Books, London ditto Weekend FT, Sunday Times – do we need all these? If there is anything interesting going on I am sure Mr. Delingpole will tell me, and amusingly and full of insight with it.
  2. Galatian says:November 5, 2009 at 2:24 pmCan I send you my laundry bill if you make me p*ss myself?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)