Five Reasons Why the Conservatives Deserve to Lose the Next Election

The scale of the problem

Please: can someone stop his job being so ludicrously easy?

1. Cowardice. Whose bright idea was it to ban Nigel Farage from speaking at the Tory conference in Manchester? And what kind of signal does this send out to all those waverers in the party wondering whether or not to transfer the allegiances to UKIP?

“We’re so concerned that Nigel Farage might tell you stuff that you want to hear that we’ve decided not to let you hear it.”

2. Spinelessness. Remember all that talk about the importance of localism? Remember all those principled-sounding statements we’ve had from the likes of John Hayes and Eric Pickles that in future if communities don’t want wind turbines imposed on them then they won’t have to? Well, it seems all that has gone by the board. No doubt under combined pressure from all the energy companies (whose beneficiaries range from the deputy prime minister’s wife to the prime minister’s father in law) and the ideological greens at DECC, Cameron’s faux-conservatives have caved yet again. I’m told by planning experts that Eric Pickles’s vaunted amendments will make not the blindest bit of difference to communities trying to fight wind turbines. So this betrayal of their natural constituency in the shires will help the Conservatives how, exactly?

3. Dishonesty. Immigration, the Conservatives have twigged, is a key issue to many voters. Hence those crass, ugly billboards. Hence scary Immigration Minister Mark Harper’s tough-sounding statements about how the Coalition is really on top of the problem. Except as Andrew Gilligan revealed in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph it’s all a nonsense. Our statistics on immigration are so unreliable as to be meaningless. I don’t know about you but I don’t like being taken for a fool by a party angling for my vote.

4. Cynicism. Much sense has been talked by those who understand the internet – among them, Mic Wright and Willard Foxton, both of this parish – about the illiberalism and counterproductivity of Cameron’s grandstanding crusade against all manner of online pornography. If it makes no sense, why is he doing it? Why out of a cynical attempt to win the approval of the leftist harpies at MumsNet, of course. Sorry but I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that government policy should be based on high principle and sound evidence, not on cheap, cynical bids to appeal to socialistic control freaks outside your natural constituency. But then, Dave does think of himself as the “heir to Blair” doesn’t he?

5. Incompetence. Do you know what, though? I think I could still forgive the Tories all of the above if they’d at least managed to do the one thing Tories are always supposed to be good at: undoing the economic mess created by the previous socialist administration.

But this “economic recovery” we’re allegedly experiencing is, like “green jobs”, a chimera. Liam Halligan doesn’t believe in it.

(Nor, suspects Rob Tyler, is it any different in the US.)

And no, this isn’t just a cyclical thing or a world-economy thing. It’s a direct consequence of Cameron’s and Osborne’s failure to acknowledge the scale of the problem and deal with it.

The framework required to support meaningful growth is simply not there. We are still spending beyond our means, the national debt is still ruinous, we still have a massive balance of trade deficit, and the government seems in no hurry to do anything about it. A wrecking ball should have been taken to New Labour’s policies by now, given that they’re largely responsible for the mess we’re in. Instead, David Cameron is like a man who’s been put in charge of the family Christmas and doesn’t want to upset the old’uns by changing too much. Apart from walnuts in the sprouts and a new board game for after dinner, it’s the same as it ever was.

Related posts:

  1. Don’t expect the BBC to tell you, but Ukip is on the march
  2. Nigel Farage – the only politician who dares say what we’re thinking
  3. Unless the Conservatives come clean about the energy mess they created, they will never deserve our vote
  4. Should Morrissey join Ukip?

2 thoughts on “Five reasons why the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election”

  1. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:27 pmThe biggest problem most politicians have is that they won’t tell hysterical protestors that they’re, on this issue, if not in life in general, in need of being sectioned for the safety of society. Years of Animal Rights, kibosh Bridgenorth Power Station, no tracking, no this, no that: sometimes you JUST HAVE TO DECIDE. The odds are stacked against the honest politician, because the aim of the media is to inflame, not to support good decisions. The aim of the ueber rich is to install incompetent blackmailable leaders and as we all know, the media is their domain, isn’t it?The second biggest problem is that those who won’t suffer near armageddon are fairly comfortable with sweeping everything away. They wouldn’t be if their children weren’t getting fed, the bills were months late, their jobs were all gone and their dignity destroyed. I only respect calls for radical destruction by those who will suffer with everyone else. I”ve never read anything by anyone to say that anyone is either that brave, stupid or selfish (if they have kids). It’s always the rich who call for the poor to suffer. If they called for themselves to suffer just one little bit, people might listen to them. HS2? NIMBY city. Windmills? NIMBY city. Fracking in Sussex? NIMBY city. The list is endless. Go try poverty: you’d soon be less radical….The third biggest problem is political parties. They are the home for the never-had-a-job-in-the-real-world SPADs. How can you POSSIBLY know how to run the country across three or four generations if you’ve never worked for one generation in the real world?? This is not the 19th century and the British Empire. This is globalised Britain, tied to the EU as one harridan parent and the USA as the other. What’s needed is the Harry Houdini escapology to escape both without being trafficked by other evil monsters. If you really are so much of a swivel-eyed loon as to see America as solely a force for good in the world, then you really do need to grow up. America is 1984 imposed on the world: a global spying behemoth, stealing the world’s assets without mercy whilst retaining a constitution it hasn’t upheld since 1945. A country infested with organised criminality and an out-of-control military-industrial complex and investment banking system. It can still come good, but the odds are on it becoming a fascist dictatorship. It’s about time you saw America’s dark side, instead of staying fantasised by Hollywood’s misdirection. It might be better if we ditched English as the formal language: then America wouldn’t be so obsessed with us. They don’t seem quite so obsessed with Norway or Switzerland, do they?? They need to see a shrink and forget about the War of Independence. None of us over here had anything to do with it and we’re sick and tired of their slave-owners demeanour to the UK. We have contempt for the way they dealt with Katrina. Contempt. Their city governance is a shambles and most of them are about to go bust. Wall Street is organised mafia and no-one has the power to stop it. There is no value whatever added to the economy by Wall Street. Nothing it does couldn’t be done as well, if not better, by 50 Warren Buffett-like folks, one in each state, in terms of investment decisions. All the speculation would be got rid of and ordinary folks on Main Street could safely deposit their savings in thrifts again, without fear of getting raped by descendents of Solly Brothers and the other Wall Street Crime Families who carried out heists that make Fort Knox look like a stroll in the Park……..and are lionized for having done so.Agree with you about UKIP, however a twit today has probably given Nigel Farage more media time than he’s had in weeks. All he needs next is a joint announcement of Boris’ latest affair along with a dalliance of one of his candidates and he can say: ‘See – we’re just like Boris, who got re-elected as Mayor of London!’

    I’d like to write another one about why the Labour Party don’t deserve to win too.

    But I would also like you to actually start mapping out what a detailed UKIP manifesto might look like.

    I won’t vote for them in 2015 as a protest. I’ll only vote for them if their manifesto is credible, costed and free of fascism.

    They have two years to produce one.

  2. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:27 pmThe biggest problem most politicians have is that they won’t tell hysterical protestors that they’re, on this issue, if not in life in general, in need of being sectioned for the safety of society. Years of Animal Rights, kibosh Bridgenorth Power Station, no tracking, no this, no that: sometimes you JUST HAVE TO DECIDE. The odds are stacked against the honest politician, because the aim of the media is to inflame, not to support good decisions. The aim of the ueber rich is to install incompetent blackmailable leaders and as we all know, the media is their domain, isn’t it?The second biggest problem is that those who won’t suffer near armageddon are fairly comfortable with sweeping everything away. They wouldn’t be if their children weren’t getting fed, the bills were months late, their jobs were all gone and their dignity destroyed. I only respect calls for radical destruction by those who will suffer with everyone else. I”ve never read anything by anyone to say that anyone is either that brave, stupid or selfish (if they have kids). It’s always the rich who call for the poor to suffer. If they called for themselves to suffer just one little bit, people might listen to them. HS2? NIMBY city. Windmills? NIMBY city. Fracking in Sussex? NIMBY city. The list is endless. Go try poverty: you’d soon be less radical….The third biggest problem is political parties. They are the home for the never-had-a-job-in-the-real-world SPADs. How can you POSSIBLY know how to run the country across three or four generations if you’ve never worked for one generation in the real world?? This is not the 19th century and the British Empire. This is globalised Britain, tied to the EU as one harridan parent and the USA as the other. What’s needed is the Harry Houdini escapology to escape both without being trafficked by other evil monsters. If you really are so much of a swivel-eyed loon as to see America as solely a force for good in the world, then you really do need to grow up. America is 1984 imposed on the world: a global spying behemoth, stealing the world’s assets without mercy whilst retaining a constitution it hasn’t upheld since 1945. A country infested with organised criminality and an out-of-control military-industrial complex and investment banking system. It can still come good, but the odds are on it becoming a fascist dictatorship. It’s about time you saw America’s dark side, instead of staying fantasised by Hollywood’s misdirection. It might be better if we ditched English as the formal language: then America wouldn’t be so obsessed with us. They don’t seem quite so obsessed with Norway or Switzerland, do they?? They need to see a shrink and forget about the War of Independence. None of us over here had anything to do with it and we’re sick and tired of their slave-owners demeanour to the UK. We have contempt for the way they dealt with Katrina. Contempt. Their city governance is a shambles and most of them are about to go bust. Wall Street is organised mafia and no-one has the power to stop it. There is no value whatever added to the economy by Wall Street. Nothing it does couldn’t be done as well, if not better, by 50 Warren Buffett-like folks, one in each state, in terms of investment decisions. All the speculation would be got rid of and ordinary folks on Main Street could safely deposit their savings in thrifts again, without fear of getting raped by descendents of Solly Brothers and the other Wall Street Crime Families who carried out heists that make Fort Knox look like a stroll in the Park……..and are lionized for having done so.Agree with you about UKIP, however a twit today has probably given Nigel Farage more media time than he’s had in weeks. All he needs next is a joint announcement of Boris’ latest affair along with a dalliance of one of his candidates and he can say: ‘See – we’re just like Boris, who got re-elected as Mayor of London!’

    I’d like to write another one about why the Labour Party don’t deserve to win too.

    But I would also like you to actually start mapping out what a detailed UKIP manifesto might look like.

    I won’t vote for them in 2015 as a protest. I’ll only vote for them if their manifesto is credible, costed and free of fascism.

    They have two years to produce one.

Comments are closed.

Capitalism has not failed. Capitalism has not recently been tried | James Delingpole

June 12, 2012

She’s not coming back till at least 2020, I’m afraid…

If Britain is ever to recover from this economic mess it needs a compelling ideological vision. That’s the message of a brilliant new report produced for the Centre for Policy Studies (the think-tank that launched the Thatcher revolution) by economist Tim Morgan (of the excellent Tullett Prebon)

Here’s the potted version, as written for Spectator blogs. First, his analysis of the problem:

Back in 1945, everyone knew that Attlee’s Labour administration stood for the welfare state and Keynesian economics. In 1979, with Britain nearly broke, everyone knew that Thatcher stood for de-regulating the economy and breaking the power of the union barons.

Everyone knew what those governments stood for. Can anyone really say the same of the current government?

Let’s be clear that we do not need another synthetic ideology. After thirteen years of New Labour’s vacuous blend of free market economics and social interventionism, voters are preternaturally attuned to spin.

The electorate, and, in particular, working people in the “squeezed middle”, are discontented. Median wages are falling ever further adrift of the cost of living, prices for essentials continue to soar and taxes have risen. There may have been little state austerity thus far, but enormous hardship is being felt by working people. Unless we can sort the economy out, this can only get worse.

And here is an outline of Morgan’s proposed solution:

What, then, should the Government stand for? I contend that it needs to stand for two things.

The first of these is reforming our capitalist system so that it serves everyone, not just a privileged minority. Capitalism should reward success, not failure. It should benefit shareholders (which means most people), not just executives. Contracts should be entered into freely by parties bargaining from roughly equal positions. This does not describe the current system, which is a bastardised version of capitalism

The aim of reform should be to bring ‘capitalism-in-practice’ back into line with ‘capitalism-in-principle’. Rewards for failure need to be stamped out. Executives must not prosper when shareholders suffer. Bonuses should be held in rolling accounts so that deductions can be made if performance deteriorates.

The second aim should be to roll back the incursions both of the state and of big business into the freedom of the individual. A new Equity Court should have the power to overturn companies’ “terms and conditions” when these are unfair to customers. Local authorities’ surveillance powers should be scrapped, as should officials’ ability to circumvent the judicial process by inflicting on-the-spot fines, or to demand admission to inspect people’s pot-plants or hedges.

Reforming capitalism so that it serves the majority, and strengthening the individual against the collectivist and the corporate, are inspiring visions. This is where government should be taking Britain.

Easier said than done, of course – as I was reminded yesterday when I Tweeted it under the headline “How to rescue capitalism….” only to have some Twentysomething smartarse Tweet back “Rescue it? Bury it!”

This is the kind of fifth-form, sub-Banksy political analysis which passes for conventional wisdom these days. It’s the dominant strain of thinking at the Guardian, at the BBC, among the studio audience at Channel 4’s apocalyptically lame 10 O’Clock Live, on Twitter, in the right-on brains of groovester opinion-formers all the way from Ben Goldacre to Graham Linehan to Polly Toynbee – and, of course, across the world in the entire Occupy movement. Capitalism, they all maintain, has failed.

No, capitalism has not recently been tried: that’s the real problem. And what I particularly like about Morgan’s report – well worth reading in full – is that it addresses this extremely important point. What we’re experiencing around the world at the moment is not  laissez-faire, self-correcting, authentic, free-market capitalism but an excedingly corrupt and bastardised form thereof.

What we’re seeing is a grotesque stitch up between the banking class, the corporate class and the political class – at the expense of the rest of us.

One day, I like to hope, those of us on the libertarian right will find common cause with (at least some of) the Occupy crowd and unite against our real enemy.

Could such a thing happen? Well not under this administration, clearly. Cameron’s Coalition is so obviously toast you could spread it with butter and eat it with kippers. But as happened with the Thatcher revolution, so it must be with any future one. Before the political battle takes place first the intellectual groundwork must be laid.

Tim Morgan’s report is an excellent starting point, a flag around which those of us who believe in small governments, free markets and true liberty can rally. We’re a long way from 1979, unfortunately. We’re currently in the middle of the Heath administration. My bet is that it won’t be before 2020 that we finally see the government with the ideological mettle to do the right thing. Till that happy day, I’m afraid, the prospects for UK Plc are looking distinctly bearish….

Related posts:

  1. Lady Thatcher was a statesman. Blair and Cameron are mere politicians
  2. RIP Beetle – killed by hoody scums’ savage hound
  3. What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…
  4. Missing Maggie

3 thoughts on “Capitalism has not failed. Capitalism has not recently been tried”

  1. zmara1 says:17th June 2012 at 10:15 amfor those on the other side of the ocean what is the meaning of the term potted version?
    1. Eworrall says:17th June 2012 at 10:30 amPotted version = synopsis or summary :-)
  2. LaraLouboutin says:18th June 2012 at 6:44 pmFor someone with the benefits of an (apparently) very good education you seem spectaculary ignorant in economics – have you tried getting a post at the TPA?

C

An Ppen Letter from My Old Mate David Cameron to the People of Britain

August 25, 2011

 

Cameron: an apology (Photo: Rii Schroer)

Cameron: an apology (Photo: Rii Schroer)

In the latest Spectator I have written an open letter to my old university mate David Cameron. Here is a companion piece: the letter I’d like to see him write to the nation, having at last recognised the gravity of the crisis we’re in.

He won’t write it, of course.

Dear Britain,

If you realised just how totally stuffed we are you wouldn’t waste time getting to the end of this letter. You’d already be outside Number 10 with pitchforks demanding my head on a spike – and you’d be quite right to do so, for I have failed you. My cabinet has failed you. My Coalition government has failed you. And it’s no good our trying to blame the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown administrations for having failed you even more. We are where we are – and where we are is about as dire a place as Britain has ever found itself in in its entire existence.

That includes, let me assure you, even the darkest days of the Second World War. Back then, however bad things might get, we were cushioned by an empire, by America, by a sense of unity and purpose, by a national character defined by resilience, self-reliance, patriotism, decency and an absolute determination – even unto death – never to surrender to tyranny in any form.

Today, none of this applies. Our empire is gone; the US – read Mark Steyn’s brilliant After America – is now owned by China; our national character has been diluted by waves of unchecked immigration and by the sapping of moral and intellectual purpose which comes with decades of ingrained “progressivism”. As for tyranny we’ve already long since surrendered to it. It’s called the EU – and the fact that it has a caring, sharing, equality-loving, nurturing, “communitarian” face does not make it any less dangerous or anti-democratic than the kind of regimes that Louis XIV or Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin were trying to impose on Europe’s once-sovereign peoples. It just makes it more subtle, and sly, and ultimately more effective, that’s all.

Some people will laugh at me for telling you this. They’ll say that I’ve lost my head; that I’m panicking you needlessly. Oh really? And which one of the problems facing us, would you say, was overstated: the fact that the European economy is on the verge of collapse; that Britain currently has a £4.8 trillion debt, which it is nowhere close even to beginning to shave off; that our best ally, America, is in worse shape than we are thanks, not least, to the reckless spending of President Obama; that one in five children have parents who have never been in work; that, thanks to our abysmal, dumbed down, low-expectation schooling we have two generations without literacy, numeracy, or even the beginnings of an understanding of what it might involve to pursue a career which doesn’t depend either on crime or state handouts; that we can no longer afford an effective military; that our police force is so hamstrung by political correctness it is incapable of protecting people or property; that our political class is so utterly remote and ineffectual that voters can scarcely see any point in going to the ballot box any more, for wherever they place the X it won’t make the blindest bit of difference. First came Blair; now you’ve got the Heir To Blair. Nothing has changed; nothing will change until a politician of principle stands up and says: “Enough is enough.”

And that’s why I’m writing this letter to you now. I want, first, to apologise for the disaster I have been since “winning” – or rather “not quite losing” – the last General Election for reasons which were almost entirely the fault of myself and my political advisers.

We took the view – the cowardly, defeatist and wrong view, I now admit – that Britain had grown so irredeemably socialised under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that the only way a Conservative administration could ever regain power was by offering still more of the same (only with a green-tinged blue rosette instead of a red one, to give the punters the illusion they had some kind of democratic choice). The problem with adopting this attitude of “managed decline” – as my ideological soulmate Ted Heath found in the 1970s; and I’m finding now – is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what’s to be done? The good news that what needs to be done is very, very simple: the exact opposite of what got into us this mess in the first place. And what got us here, is excessive taxation, regulation, and government spending. We need to remember that there are only two kinds of government money: the kind it rips off from taxpayers in the productive sector of the economy; and the kind it borrows at rates of interest which mean it either has to borrow still more money or take still more money off the taxpayer. Either way the result is the same: an economy in which it becomes increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs, traders, small businessmen – the backbone of an economy – to go about their work. If they can’t go about their work then the economy cannot grow. And if the economy cannot grow, the government will need to take still more money from the taxpayer, or borrow still more money (at possibly even higher rates of interest) merely to maintain its current spending levels. The inevitable result is a spiral of decline.

But while the good news is that the remedy is very simple, the bad news is that it will be extremely hard to apply. One of the main reasons for this is the nature of the political class: whether on the Left or what currently passes for the “centre-Right”, its instincts are much the same – always to ask “what more can the Government do to help?” This is the wrong question, for the answer is always the same: more stifling bureaucracy; more parasite-like layers of administration; more regulation; more spending of money that the government simply does not have.

The other main reason is you, the British people. Far too many of you, for far too long have got far too used to the idea that government’s job is to wipe your backsides for you. And it’s not. Not from now on, at any rate. For one thing we can’t afford the paper. For another thing we can’t afford the staff to do something which most of you are perfectly capable of doing for yourselves. It’s a scandalous waste of other people’s money – taxpayer’s money – and the very last thing we need if we’re even to begin to hope to compete in a global economy against places like India and China and Brazil where the work force are perfectly capable of putting in 12 hour days and wiping their own backsides without any expectation that the state’s role is to do their dirty work for them.

That’s why I’m writing to you now to tell you like it is. What I’m hoping is that I’m straight with you, you’ll be straight with me in return. You’ll never again take the soft, easy, head-in-the-sand path of voting for which ever political party offers to bribe you the most with money it doesn’t have. You’ll vote for the one which acknowledges the scale of the problem facing us all and which has the courage and the will to deal with it.

That political party ought, by rights, to be the Conservatives. And perhaps – before I embarked on my misguided quest to “detoxify the brand” – it would have been. But as you may have noticed recently this is no longer case. We have a Justice Secretary more interested in the rights of criminals than law-abiding citizens; we have a Home Secretary who believes that policing should primarily serve the interests of Britain’s senior police officers rather than the citizens they’re supposed to protect; we have a Foreign Secretary – formerly a principled Eurosceptic – who has since done a Portillo and decided that his post-politics employment prospects are better served by selling British interests down the river at every turn, for that way a comfy future on the Euro gravy train lies.

And if you think the Conservative wets in my cabinet are a liability, imagine what it’s like having to govern with Liberal Democrats. We have an Energy and Climate Change Secretary whose primary purpose is to bomb our economy back to the age of the wattle and daub and the coracle; we have a Business Secretary who loathes business; we have a Deputy Prime Minister who doesn’t know what he wants except that it has to be the opposite of whatever Conservatives want otherwise he’ll get torn to pieces by his own party.

This is no way to run a country. It is especially no way to run a country on the brink of a precipice. That is why today I’m going to offer you a clear political choice. I’m scrapping the Coalition, because 2013 is far, far too late to start out on the rescue package which needs to be initiated now. Instead, I’m going to stake my political career and the future of Britain by calling an immediate general election.

After that it’s up to you: liberty or the soft, enervating tyranny of the Left; growth or stagnation; future or no future; jobs or no jobs for your children and grandchildren. You choose.

Related posts:

  1. Cameron’s price for saving his Coalition: the destruction of Britain
  2. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  3. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election
  4. David Cameron’s shale gas lifeline

 

Never mind the squeaky voice, Osborne: what have you got to say about THIS?

Paying to throw workers out of work

What are your government's energy policies, George? Despicable.

What are your government’s energy policies, George? Despicable.

Here’s an open letter to the Chancellor from Clive Francis, a reader of the Autonomous Mind blog. It’s so devastatingly right (* see below) and true I think it could become a bit of an internet hit, so I’m going to reprint it here. Why not send a copy to your local MP and see how evasive his response is? (H/T Old Goat)

Dear Chancellor

What a Nonchalant Way to Spend £400 Billion

The United Kingdom appears to be the only country in the world to have legislated against climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008 was enacted with only five Members of Parliament dissenting (in what Peter Lilley described as “a wave of self-righteous euphoria”) and without any prior attempt at costing. Some time after enactment the Brown government announced that the provisions of this Act would cost some £404 billion over the next 20 years.

Thus, apart from the Finance Acts themselves, the Climate Change Act 2008 is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament – and completely without prior costing.

Are you able to detail the precise scientific facts on which the Government is relying to justify expending the £20 billion per year required by the provisions of the Climate Change Act?

I recently asked my MP to obtain from the Climate Change Ministry a detailed and logical analysis of, and for correction of any errors of fact in, a paper (enclosed) I had written which questioned the part mankind played in our ever-changing climate. The Minister for Climate Change, in replying, did not deny that 95% of the greenhouse effect was caused by water vapour, only 4% by natural carbon dioxide and only a miniscule 0.117% by man-made carbon dioxide.

However, instead of a detailed analysis or repudiation, the Minister responded in general terms and relying for his clinching argument on the phrase:

“The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is a grave environmental threat”.

Apart from his employment of argumentum ad populum, the Minister’s claimed “overwhelming majority” seems to have evaporated markedly last month when a number of irate climate scientists forced the Royal Society into an almost unprecedented and humiliating climb down by having to withdraw its own formal publication “Climate Change – a Summary of the Science”.

The Society’s Chairman, Lord Rees, then issued a statement “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change”. This is a telling swipe at the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), which has had to withdraw its dramatic forecasts on the melting of Himalayan glaciers, rising sea levels, flooding of the Netherlands and African crop failures.

The Royal Society’s new guide now admits, “The size of future temperature changes and other aspects of climate change are still subject to uncertainty and some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced.” What an astonishing and complete reversal of The Society’s earlier stance. This sober statement of uncertainty over mankind’s involvement in climate change now differs markedly from the present British Government’s melodramatic posture.

Undeterred by this fundamental alteration to the accepted science of climates, Britain’s Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, subsequently made his pitch that the UK Government wanted to foster “a third industrial revolution” in low-carbon technology with policies based
on cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases.”

So the Royal Society now openly admits it got it completely wrong but why does Chris Huhne have such difficulty in doing the same? His conviction is patent – but where are the facts?

Just what are the proven threats which our Government is trying to avert?

Every single hour the earth receives more energy from the sun than the entire human population uses in one whole year. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet annually is twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.

As for our climate, within the last two thousand years outdoor grapes were grown in Cumbria and on occasions the Thames has frozen over. The poles have had ice caps for only 20% of Earth’s geological history. Fluctuating sunspot activity leading to variable solar output, the Earth’s wandering axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit round the sun and were all shown (Kepler, Milancovic) to be the causes of the Earth’s cycles of widely changing climate and of the Earth’s successive and massive glaciations/deglaciations. This, long before industrialisation and carbon were even conceived as possible causes for our climate’s changes – changes far greater than those being presently blamed on carbon.

Whilst no one denies that the world’s industrialisation has increased considerably the output of greenhouse gases, to ascribe the current phase of our ever changing climate to one single variable (carbon dioxide) or, more specifically, to a very small proportion of one variable (i.e. human produced carbon dioxide – 0.117%) is not science, for it requires us to abandon all we know about planet Earth, the sun, our galaxy and the cosmos.

The conclusion of the scientists responsible for the draft of the first report of the IPCC was that:

“None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of the increase in greenhouse gases.”

This sentence was apparently omitted on political grounds by the IPCC staff from the published edition of the report and caused the resignation of the scientists involved.  As Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT said:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age”.

TATA, the Indian steel conglomerate, is currently closing the Redcar steelworks with the loss of 1700 British jobs. It appears that TATA thus stands to benefit by some £600 million in EU Carbon Credits for stopping Redcar’s “Carbon Emissions”. TATA is currently expanding its steel production elsewhere in the world. Thanks to Chris Huhne the British taxpayer is now paying Europe to throw British workers out of work and, in the end, achieving nothing.

Just where are the solid facts to justify this unproven creed that mankind is altering the climate? The Minister for Climate Change cannot supply them, he relies on argumentum ad populum and is now finding himself running short of populi. In short, the Government is spending a prodigious amount of money trying to act like King Canute in attempting to stem the vast primordial external forces that drive the constant and cyclical changes to our climate. Thus, whilst the Government is asking us to tighten our belts, are you really content for it to wager £20 billion a year on a theory, now formally deemed as uncertain by the Royal Society, that mankind is causing or even capable of causing alteration to the climate?

As Professor Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, remarked:

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Or, the Government can go on spending £20 billion a year and achieve precisely the same effect. However is this the best way to tackle the deficit or fund university education?

Yours sincerely

Clive Francis

* As m’learned friend Booker points out, the £400 billion figure quoted in the letter is a gross underestimate (based on feeble arithmetic published by DECC). The correct figure is nearly twice as much – £768 billion. Not of course that even the higher figure will dent the complacency of any of the MPs to whom you send the letter).

Related posts:

  1. George Osborne’s New Eco-Bullingdon Club
  2. Never mind the global economic collapse: what about plastic bags???
  3. ‘War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength’ claims Osborne
  4. The BBC: Official Voice of Ecofascism

One thought on “Never mind the squeaky voice, Osborne: what have you got to say about THIS?”

  1. Velocity says:3rd December 2010 at 2:39 pmGood letter.Gov’t response? Snake oil from snake oil salesmen.

    Westminster is the toilet of the country, a bin for idiot idealists, crooks and rammed to overflowing with cronies.

    Same as it ever was…

Comments are closed.