G7 Leaders: Vote Brexit and the World Will End

“A UK exit from the EU would reverse the trend towards greater global trade and investment, and the jobs they create, and is a further serious risk to growth,” G7 leaders said, in the only reference to the vote in a 32-page declaration.

This joint threat by the leaders of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) is but the latest in a series of dire warnings of the terrible things that might transpire were Britain to leave the European Union. They include: fewer students; more cancer; the death of science; starving pensioners; a year-long recession; tumbling house prices; higher food prices; more terrorism; the loss of half a million jobs; more crime; and the outbreak of World War III.

Perhaps the best comment on these made-up forecasts comes from Prime Minister David Cameron’s friend and former guru Steve Hilton.

Former No 10 adviser Steve Hilton’s shocking revelation came as he blasted his old boss’s “hysterical and obviously phony economic scare stories to frighten people half to death”.

The close pal of the PM said he knew the government’s referendum numbers were fabricated “because I used to do that stuff”.

And the public knows this too. What the polls are showing is that the leading politician in the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson, is trusted to tell the truth about the EU by more than twice as many people as trust the Prime Minister on this subject. Furthermore, people say they trust the Leave camp more than they do Remain.

Read the rest at Breitart.

Britain MUST Leave The EU Says David Cameron’s Strategy Guru Steve Hilton

Even from a known Brexiteer such as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, these words would be pretty strong stuff. But coming from Steve Hilton, they are absolute dynamite: a devastating blow to the Remain campaign and – given that it was starting to look both unassailable and rather cocky – a perfectly timed one too.

It matters because Hilton, perhaps more than anyone, can lay claim to having “made” David Cameron, transforming him from an obscure backbench MP into Prime Minister material. Hilton has advised the Prime Minister on and off throughout his period in office and is still one of Dave’s closest friends. Well at least he was till the publication of this blistering broadside in the Daily Mail.

Here’s a taste:

It is anti-market, stifling innovation and competition with its statism, corporatism and bureaucracy.

It is anti-enterprise, acting in the interests of the big businesses that have corruptly captured the levers of power in Brussels through their shameless lobbying and insider deal-making, enabling a gradual corporate takeover of our country.

The European Union is anti-trade, locking developing countries out of world markets with its evil Common Agricultural Policy that feather-beds French farmers while keeping African farmers trapped in poverty — and despair.


Then we’re told that the EU is vital for our security. Really? I was pretty amazed when I first heard this point being made. The idea that a British Prime Minister can’t protect Britain properly without the EU is frankly astonishing and, if true, rather alarming.

But, of course, it’s not true. Yes, in a complex world of global threats, we need security co-operation with other countries — like what happens in NATO. Forgive me if I’ve missed something, but I wasn’t aware that this referendum is about leaving NATO.


But perhaps the most powerful argument for leaving the EU is to look at the people who are wheeled out to persuade us to stay: figures like the International Monetary Fund boss Christine Lagarde, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, advertising giant Sir Martin Sorrell, as well as the Confederation of British Industry and all the other Establishment stooges.

They want us to stay in the EU because their whole world depends upon it. Their lifestyle of summit meetings and first-class flights and five-star hotels; their flitting and floating from New York to Brussels to Beijing, serving the interests of the technocratic elite — the bankers, bureaucrats and accountants who run the modern world and who, regardless of which government is in power in which country, push the same old dogma of global-isation, privatisation and centralisation.

This represents by far the biggest blow to David Cameron personally and also to the credibility of his pro-EU argument since the official referendum campaign began.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Jeremy Clarkson Chops off His Own Balls

Dan Kitwood/Getty

Jeremy Clarkson has just lopped off his privates in public.

It wasn’t an edifying sight.

I’m trying to think of an analogy that captures the enormity of what Clarkson has just done. In terms of sheer cringeworthiness, I suppose it would be that sick but oddly compelling documentary I saw the other night called Dan’s 80lb Testicle, about a man with an unfeasibly large growth on his undercarriage which he had to lumber round the streets of LA using an upside down hoodie.

In terms of pusillanimity, it would be something along the lines of Sir Francis Drake on the bowling green at Plymouth looking down at the Spanish Armada and saying: “You know what, me hearties? Let’s get in our ships, sharpish, and sail off somewhere nice and safe, like the other side of the world. It’s plain as a pikestaff that England is lost.”

In terms of nauseating, oleaginous, social climbing disgustingness it’s like Uriah Heep on his knees ever so ‘umbly presenting a BBC tribute to the late Princess of Wales, filmed at Althorp with  hour long interviews with Earl Spencer and Tony Blair with songs by Sir Elton John performed by the children of Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, entitled “Still Queen of All our Hearts.” On Brown Nose Day.

Really, though, there is no metaphor or image or simile on earth quite dramatic enough to capture the shaming spinelessness, the platitudinous vapidity, the intellectual feebleness, the surrender-the-pass cowardliness of the piece Clarkson wrote yesterday in the Sunday Times “explaining” why, all things considered, he thinks it’s a good idea for Britain to remain in the European Union.

Here is an extract to give you a taste.

Whether I’m sitting in a railway concourse in Brussels or pottering down the canals of southwestern France or hurtling along a motorway in Croatia, I feel way more at home than I do when I’m trying to get something to eat in Dallas or Sacramento. I love Europe, and to me that’s important.

I’m the first to acknowledge that so far the EU hasn’t really worked. We still don’t have standardised electrical sockets, and every member state is still out for itself, not the common good. This is the sort of thing that causes many people to think, “Well, let’s just leave and look after ourselves in future.”

I get that. I really do. And after I’d watched Hannan’s speech, that’s briefly how I felt too. But, actually, isn’t it better to stay in and try to make the damn thing work properly? To create a United States of Europe that functions as well as the United States of America? With one army and one currency and one unifying set of values?

So Jeremy Clarkson’s arguments for Britain remaining in the European Union boil down to two things.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Face It, the Right Are Going to Lose the Next UK General Election. Unless…

David Cameron has said he thinks schools should teach mainly in imperial measurements rather than in nasty, foreign, and undeniably French metric.

Funny that. It’s almost like he’d had spies at the rowdy Conservative conference fringe event the night before – staged by smokers’ rights campaigner Forest and Conservatives for Liberty – where I raised this very topic in a speech on Europe. I noted the irony that even though we defeated Napoleon in 1815 and Hitler in 1945 we still seem to have inherited half their policies all the same. From Hitler, inter alia, we got the clampdown on smoking and the obsession with environmentalism. From Napoleon, among other things, we got the metric measurement system – despite the fact that most of us continue stubbornly to think in pints and miles rather than half litres and kilometres.

Prime Ministers don’t make these casual asides by accident. Clearly, what’s going on here is that Cameron has been advised to chuck a few gobbets of red meat to the more reactionary wing of the Tory party: to the kind of people, in other words, who feel badly let down by four years of Cameron’s dogged centrism and who are now sorely tempted to throw in their lot with UKIP instead.

We heard similar right-wing mood music in Chancellor George Osborne’s speech yesterday: the freeze on benefits; the emphasis on tax cuts rather than spending rises; the renewed commitment to tackling the deficit. I was reminded of the chats Osborne and I used to have in the playground when our children were briefly at the same school together. “Just you wait till we form a majority government: then you’ll see what real Tories we are…” he used to say.

As a natural small ‘c’ conservative, I have little problem with this rightwards turn. (Though I think this imperial stuff is forgettable nonsense: yes it’s all jolly and jingoistic but let’s get real – the 30cm ruler is here to stay and it’s not like we’re going to go back to pre-decimal currency). But let us not be under any illusions as to why this is happening. It is not because the Cameron claque has suddenly realised that they were right-wing all along and that actually, come to think of it, they really do believe that the state has got far too big and that we’d all be better off outside Europe. It’s because their minds have been concentrated by opinion polls showing that, thanks to UKIP splitting their vote, the Conservatives are on course to lose the next election to Ed Miliband’s socialists.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. General Election 2010: My mate Dave…
  2. Five reasons why the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election
  3. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election
  4. The date of the General Election is:


David Cameron’s Greatest Legacy: The Rise and Rise of UKIP

British Prime Minister David Cameron has been making bold, statesman-like noises about Islamic State and President Putin this week. Well, of course he has. It’s what desperate leaders always do when their domestic policies and popularity ratings are tanking.

Unfortunately, it may be too little too late.

Cameron has reached that stage in his political career where, even were he singlehandedly to liberate Mosul, personally undo the handcuffs of all the captive Yazidis, Christians and Shias, stop the Syrian civil war, and engineer an enduring peaceful settlement in the Ukraine, he would still go down in history as one of Britain’s lesser prime ministerial also-rans.

Indeed, it is looking increasingly as though his single most significant legacy will be the one summed up by the cover of this week’s Private Eye satirical magazine: David Cameron, perhaps even more so than charismatic leader Nigel Farage, is the man most responsible for rise and rise of the Britain’s tea party UKIP.

Consider the latest opinion polls.

YouGov/Sun poll CON 32%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%

This spells out the situation in black and white. Cameron’s Conservatives stand barely a prayer of winning a working majority at the next UK general election. And this despite the fact that Cameron’s prime opponent, Labour leader Ed Miliband, is widely considered such a weird, comical, economically illiterate joke figure as to be almost unelectable. And also, despite the fact that Britain currently has one of the world’s most successful economies and is enjoying a house price boom which is making many of the people who ought naturally be drawn to voting Conservative earn more in a year, tax free, than they do from their day jobs.

Why then are the Conservatives still polling so relatively dismally?

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Should Morrissey join Ukip?
  2. David Cameron’s worst nightmare
  3. Maybe we’d be better off if David Cameron had gone to Harrow
  4. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism


Never Mind Gaza: What about the Yezidis?

There was one part of Baroness Warsi’s resignation letter I admired: that was when, just after she’d condemned the Coalition’s inaction over Gaza, she brought the full weight of her righteous indignation to bear on Britain’s abject failure to stop the Yezidis being massacred in Iraq.

No not really. a) the Yezidis aren’t being killed by Jews, but rather by Muslims, which I guess doesn’t make it such a big deal and b) I doubt Baroness Warsi has even heard of the Yezidis.

But then, to be fair, few people had until their bodies started being posted up in pictures on Twitter, often minus their heads, and with grinning ISIS jihadis posing behind them.

If you want to know more about the Yezidis (or Yazidis, as they are also spelt), then this excellent piece by Sean Thomas is a good place to start.

Read the full article at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Baroness Token resigns. Cameron should have known: ‘Never buy the first pony you see.’
  2. Channel 4’s Jon Snow on Gaza: fair and balanced, anyone?
  3. Gaza: spare me your sick, dishonest, manipulative dead baby photos
  4. Chicken Little jumps the shark


Cameron’s Coalition of Liars, Trimmers and Charlatans Are Destroying Britain’s Landscape

Lundy (Lundy Field Society)

About this time ten years ago, I enjoyed one of my happiest family holidays ever. It was on Lundy which, as Will Heaven rightly says, is the most beautiful island in Britain. If you’re lucky enough to be staying in one of the Landmark Trust properties on the island you get the place pretty much to yourself once the daytrippers have gone. There are fantastic cliffs for your children to fall off, puffins to look for (though usually not to see: we never did) and seals to go swimming with. It’s like living out an Arthur Ransome/Enid Blyton novel for real.

And now its unspoilt perfection is about to be ruined by a stupendously enormous, outrageously expensive, and totally effing useless offshore wind farm belonging to a big German energy company.

This, like so many of the wind turbines blighting our countryside, will be by far the most distinctive legacy of David Cameron’s Coalition. Long, long after we’ve all forgotten why there was such a fuss about gay marriage, the bedroom tax or the Libyan intervention, those ugly, mostly disused, turbines will still be up there, blighting every view for miles around, a monument to the folly of the policy makers who put them there, the religious zeal of the green loons who pushed for their erection and the despicable greed of the landowners and energy companies who profited by them at the expense of the poor taxpayers and energy users who had to subsidise them to the tune of 100 per cent (for onshore wind) and 200 per cent (for offshore).

I hope no one ever, ever forgets that the man primarily to blame for this was David Cameron. As Prime Minister, he could have taken the lead. He could so easily have said: “Enough is enough. Not on my watch” – and done something to put a stop to it. Instead, like the dodgy PR man which is all he has ever really amounted to being, Cameron has stuck to what he is best at: speaking with forked tongue.

As Will Heaven notes, just recently he has been making all the right noises on wind:

“I suspect there will be fewer schemes going ahead,” he told the Western Morning News last week. He reaffirmed this idea in a Q & A with Lancashire factory workers: “Frankly, we’ve got some in the UK – I don’t think we’re going to have a huge amount more.”

And in June, you’ll recall, Eric Pickles’s Department for Communities and Local Government announced, with much fanfare, that in future green energy targets would not be allowed to override the wishes of local communities to oppose wind farms. The night before it was announced I even got a call from a senior government minister briefing me about it. “I thought you’d want to know that we ARE doing something about it,” he said, proudly.

Was this minister a fool or a liar? And was Eric Pickles sold a pup or is he a liar too? Whatever, we know now for a fact all these new planning guidelines announced by Pickles’s department have made almost no difference whatsoever. Which either means that Pickles, his department, and all those senior Conservatives opposed to wind are quite disgracefully incompetent; or that Cameron has – as is his wont – allowed them to be ridden over, roughshod, by the green ideologues at DECC and by all his rich pals (not to mention his father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt; and his deputy prime minister’s wife, Mrs Clegg) with their snouts in the renewable energy trough.

Certainly, that phone call for me was the last time I’ll ever trust anything one of Cameron’s despicable bunch of wriggling, squirmy, morally bankrupt toe rags tells me again. I loathe them with every fibre of my being, for many reasons, but for one above all: thanks to their incompetence, cowardice, cynicism and ignorance they are destroying the greatest of all our magnificent country’s assets – the matchless beauty of its countryside.

Related posts:

  1. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  2. We’re destroying our countryside – and for what?
  3. The disgusting toffs who are destroying Britain
  4. 10 Reasons to be Cheerful About Dave’s New Coalition of the Unwilling

2 thoughts on “Cameron’s coalition of liars, trimmers and charlatans are destroying Britain’s landscape”

  1. Angus2100 says:23rd August 2013 at 7:35 amFor those of you who think that wind turbines ruin views… http://i.imgur.com/9ImqiLk.jpg
  2. Angus2100 says:23rd August 2013 at 7:35 amFor those of you who think that wind turbines ruin views… http://i.imgur.com/9ImqiLk.jpg

Comments are closed.

Welfare to Work Scandal: The Inevitable Consequence of Cameronomics

Terrifying spending

If Cameron’s Coalition weren’t so utterly crap, I would have said that today’s new revelations about the multi-billion pound welfare-to-work scandal were the government’s Gerald Ratner moment – the one where the credibility of Cameron plc finally plummeted to lows from which it could never recover.

But I can’t say that because the Ratner moment happened ages before that. Indeed, if you believe Iain Martin’s superb analysis yesterday – and I do – the terminal rot set in to the Cameroon project as long ago as the general election campaign, when Cameron’s lot got it into their heads that the way to beat arguably the worst prime minister in British history Gordon Brown was to promise to copy all his policies but just in a more user-friendly watered-down, green-tinged way, and with a nicely spoken semi-toff in charge rather than a dour, beetle-browed Scotsman. Unsurprisingly, the voting public was less than thrilled.

Martin’s piece began with a glorious insider anecdote which bears repeating:

One of the most senior cabinet ministers under Gordon Brown likes to recall how during the run-up to to the 2010 general election he kept expecting one morning to wake up, turn on the Today programme and discover that the atrocious campaign the Tories had been running up until that point had been a feint, similar to that organised before D Day to lull the enemy into complacency. The proper campaign would then start. But the day never came and the Tories went into the election without any clear and coherent offer to the country. David Cameron should, says the Brown-era cabinet minister, have won by fifty seats.

Exactly. I can’t be the only one here who finds himself constantly driven to a state of planetstruck incomprehension by the sheer asininity, the counterproductivity, the gormlessness, the stupidity, the truly epic wrongness of almost every new policy the government introduces. If this were a Labour government, led by Ed Balls, you could understand it. It would all make perfect sense. But it’s not. This, believe it or not – and I’m not sure that I can any more – is a Conservative-led administration running the country. Since when did Britain’s Conservatives end up so terminally useless?

Since, I would argue, they began subscribing to the Keynesian “consensus”. (A bit like the “consensus” on Climate Change, though even more expensive and dangerous). This is the idea – hugely popular with left-wing governments, for obvious reasons – that the state has the miraculous ability to create more jobs and boost economic growth by spending more taxpayers’ money.

It can’t.

I don’t dispute that the state can create “jobs”. For example, it could create a “job” by paying people to dig holes and fill them up again. Or, more absurdly still, it could “create” “jobs” by paying people to “work” – via hidden tariffs forced on energy users –  in the renewables industry (solar, wind, etc).

But these aren’t real jobs. In fact you might say they’re the opposite of jobs. Anti-jobs, even. For example, in Spain, research has shown that for every pretend job created by government spending in the renewables industry, 2.2 jobs are destroyed in the real economy. In Britain, the figure is more depressing still. For every one of the “green jobs” “created” by David Cameron, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.

The notion that government spending is capable of generating economic growth is more ludicrous still. On the contrary, as the excellent Allister Heath notes at City AM, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is an inverse correlation between government spending and economic growth.

Here are a few of the studies. A 2011 paper by Davide Furceri and Ricardo Sousa studying 145 countries over 47-years found every one per cent of GDP rise in government spending reduces private consumption and private investment by 1.9 per cent. A 2011 study by António Afonso and João Tovar Jalles of 108 countries over 38-years found that there is a significant negative effect of size of government on growth. A 2008 study by Asa Johansson and colleagues of 21 OECD countries over a 35-year period found that every one per cent rise in tax as a share of GDP is associated with a 0.14-0.27 per cent fall in GDP. A 2009 study of 15 EU member states by Mihai Mutascu and Marius Milos found that the optimal public spending share of GDP was 30 per cent. Others have found that the level of spending that maximises performance on the Human Development Index is 30-35 per cent of GDP. Public spending in the UK is close to half of GDP today.

What’s so truly terrifying about Cameron and Osborne is that their entire economic policy is based on doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done to get Britain’s economy back on track: money-printing; borrowing; spending on pointless projects like HS2; increasing the price of energy through the drive to renewables; putting obstacles in the way of shale gas developments.

The disastrous £5 billlion jobs scheme is just one more damned thing in the government’s litany of crimes against the taxpayer. How much better it would have been for us all if, rather than helping the grinning Emma “£8.6 million dividend? That will do nicely!” Harrison to buy her enormous Derbyshire mansion and amass a fortune at our expense, the money had instead been taken off our tax bills. That way, we would have had more money to spend in the real economy, creating real jobs rather than the pretend jobs

Cameron has attracted much flak for employing the deeply suspect Andy Coulson as his director of communications. But I would suggest that a far greater indicator of his abject unfitness for office is his extraordinarily ill-advised decision to appoint Harrison his Families Czar. What it shows is that his economic illiteracy is no unhappy aberration, nor the result of pressure from his coalition partners, but absolutely fundamental to his ideological vision.

The “Big Society”, it seems, is destined to do for Britain what Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” did for America. Johnson was not a conservative. Neither is David Cameron.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name
  2. It is left to me to point out this regrettable, overlooked fact: Dave blew it
  3. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  4. Andrew Breitbart’s War Comes to Britain

Why the Child Benefit cuts have made me despise Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’ even more than I did already | James Delingpole

October 5, 2010

Not because it’s going to leave my family nearly two grand a year out of pocket. But because of the way the Conservatives have made such heavy weather of it. Really, the case for cutting child benefit for the (relatively) affluent middle classes ought to be a no-brainer. How can it possibly make sense to have a system where the government steals earners’ income through taxes and then gives a tiny sliver of it back to them with a prissy label attached saying: “This is to be spent on your children?” As if, somehow, left to their own devices, salaried parents would instead blow their wodge on Albanian donkey porn and Krispy Kreme donuts?

There are two reasons we have been brought to this sorry pass.

1. The cultural hegemony of the BBC. What’s the BBC’s reaction to this modest and perfectly sensible economy measure? The same as it is with any attempt to reduce the power of big government: to scour the land in search of middle-class parents likely to be “hit” by this assault on their inalienable right to be treated like supplicants by the government and broadcast their bleatings as “proof” that this new measure is “unjust”. And where the BBC leads, the newspapers follow. Even right wing newspapers. So long as the BBC is permitted to go on setting our cultural agenda – by forever adopting the default position “Why can’t the government do MORE to improve our lives?” this country is stuffed.

2. The abject moral cowardice of Dave Cameron and his goons. Sure it’s hard arguing the case for lower taxation and smaller government in a nation which has been sucking on the teat of the state for decades. But if the Conservatives aren’t capable of doing it, then it’s time those of us who believed in this country’s economic future switched their votes to a party that did.

Related posts:

  1. The majesty and usefulness of recycling captured in an exquisite hand-crafted child’s toy
  2. Power cuts are a much more serious problem than ‘Climate Change’
  3. Do the Conservatives think we’re all paedophiles too?
  4. Five reasons why the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election


Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? | James Delingpole

May 16, 2010

Huhne, shortly after being hit by a falling acorn

Huhne, shortly after being hit by a falling acorn

Remember those innocent days when we used to worry about whose finger was on the nuclear trigger?

Well much more dangerous now, I’m afraid, is the man with his finger on the nuclear off-button.

His name’s Chris “Chicken Licken” Huhne and unfortunately he’s Britain’s new Secretary of the Environment and Climate Change.

You can quite understand the rationale behind his appointment. “All right, so everyone loathes him so we won’t give him a Cabinet seat. But if we don’t give him a purpose he might grow even more unpleasant, so let’s give him the Eco job, where he can throw his weight around and show how much both our parties are united on Climate Change.”

Problem is, the destructive power Cameron and Clegg have put in Chicken Licken’s terrifying claws is far greater than either understands. Huhne now has the ability to bring the British economy to a standstill with his fanatical pursuit of CO2 reduction targets and his equally fanatical opposition to the one form of CO2 free power production that actually works – nuclear.

To those of you who think this is just the ranting of a right-wing AGW-denying headbanger, listen to the wise words of Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography, and avowed socialist:

The lamentable fact that David Cameron has appointed Chris Huhne , Liberal Democrat MP for Eastleigh, Hampshire, as the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, underscores one’s profoundest fears that our leading politicians have still still not grasped, despite all the red flag warnings, the depth and urgency of the UK energy crisis. This, after all, is the man who is avowedly opposed to the development of a new generation of nuclear powers stations, who believes that we can fill our looming energy gap with wave, wind, and waffle, and who is totally uncritical of the ‘global warming’ message.

Or listen, if you prefer, to our own Rowena Mason:

However, there remains a sizeable threat that the Liberals could force a time-consuming and costly public inquiry that delays the new build. The idea that Chris Huhne will have to formulate regulatory policy and set out a timetable for nuclear is likely to be a considerable worry. Most destabilising is the fact that policy will probably not be clear for some time, for Mr Huhne is going to have to square his Department’s theoretical support for nuclear with his own views (in a previous speech on energy) that:

“No private sector investor has built a nuclear power station anywhere in the world without lashings of government subsidy since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The World Bank refuses to lend on nuclear projects because of the long history of overruns. Our message is clear, No to nuclear, as it is not a short cut, but a dead end.”

It would be nice to put this disastrous appointment down to mere oversight on Cameron’s part. Unfortunately, this upsetting video suggests very much otherwise. Huhn’s department was one of the first to be visited by the new prime minister, who used the occasion to declare his ambition to build the “greenest government ever.”

Great. So the twin pillars of the Lib Cons’ grand plan for economic recovery are:

1. Stifle entrepreneurship and drive the brightest and best abroad by raising taxes.

2. Deny industry the cheap and reliable energy sources it needs because – without a single piece of solid scientific evidence to back up your theory – you have decided to buy into the hysteria-fuelled myth that CO2 is dangerous.

Clearly there is going to be much suffering ahead. But at least it might be bearable if we knew it was being done as part of a coherent plan to restore Britain’s economic fortunes. The pursuit of a low-carbon economy will do the exact opposite of this.

If I were an investor in Britain Plc, I’d start selling now.

Related posts:

  1. We need to talk about wind farms…
  2. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  3. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  4. Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne