UKIP’s New Manifesto: Are They Playing the Lib Dem Game?

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the new manifesto from UKIP – Britain’s Tea Party – is the debt it owes to its most bitter ideological opponents, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

From the simperingly centrist, faux-Tory Prime Minister, it has borrowed the technique of trying to wrong-foot its enemies on the left by trying to ape their language. Just as Cameron infamously urged Conservatives to “hug a hoodie”, panic about melting glaciers, and see the merit in the socialistic witterings of Guardian writer Polly Toynbee, so UKIP has shunned the right-wing press and chosen to soft-launch its avowedly “blue-collar” (ie working class) manifesto with an interview in the left-leaning Prospect magazine.
Furthermore, UKIP’s director of policy Tim Aker has made the dubious claim that the party has moved beyond the “left-right, libertarian-authoritarian” paradigm. No, it hasn’t. No party ever can or will: this is a statist fantasy akin to Tony Blair’s “Third Way”. Policies can only ever possibly be left or right, libertarian or authoritarian. The suggestion that there is some magical, sweetly reasonable parallel universe where none of these labels apply is the kind of cynical fudge one associates with the tired old, same old Westminster political class, not with crusading Tea Partiers determined to put an end to Big Government.

As for the Nick Clegg influence, this rotten smell can be detected in at least a couple of the new policies. One is in UKIP’s declared opposition to the “Bedroom Tax”; another is its insistence – despite deep concerns about the growing, indeed terrifying, pensions liability overhang – that UKIP has no plans to raise the retirement age.

Both are classic cases of what is known in the trade as “playing the Lib Dem” game. That is, saying whatever is necessary to get you the most votes, regardless of how badly it betrays your ideological principles. (The Liberal Democrats are notorious for this: if it’s a Muslim constituency, their candidate will tend to drape himself in the black flag of the Islamic State and demand the restoration of the Caliphate; if it’s in a seaside constituency full of pensioners, he’ll demand massive public subsidies for tea dances, bridge evenings and zimmer frames).

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Oliver Wetwin, creator of Tories’ inspired, election-winning manifesto, gets his just reward
  2. Nigel Farage – the only politician who dares say what we’re thinking
  3. My excitement over the Conservatives’ manifesto…
  4. Cameron and Osborne are giving public schoolboys a bad name

 

Nick Clegg’s Riot Inquiry Panel Is beyond a Joke

Nick Clegg: out of control (Photo: AP)

Nick Clegg: out of control (Photo: AP)

Just when you thought Cameron’s Coalition couldn’t get any more lame along comes its announcement that Nick Clegg has appointed the panel which will investigate the riots. And guess what their conclusion is going to be. No, really, I can tell you already. It’s going to read something like this:

In a very real sense, the riots were the result of an outpouring of rage and frustration by disaffected youth who feel alienated and disenfranchised by a materialistic, racist society which they feel offers them no hope and no future. Therefore what the government must do is appoint an Inner City Cohesion Czar, on a salary of not less than £500,000 pa,to oversee a series of regional initiatives in which swarms of technocrats and social workers and other civic professionals with third class degrees in sociology and media studies can descend on affected areas to empathise with their pain, nurture their grievance and stoke their sense of entitlement through the targeted application of wheelbarrow after wheelbarrow full of taxpayers money.

How do we know this? Well look, for example, at the CV of the apparatchik chosen to head the enquiry, one Darra Singh.

Career July 2005-present: chief executive, Ealing council; 2001-05: chief executive, Luton council; 2000-01: regional director for best value, Audit Commission: 1996-2000; chief executive, Hexagon Housing Association; 1993-96: chief executive, ASRA Greater London Housing Association; 1991-93: regional director, North British Housing Association; 1989-91: senior policy officer, London Housing Unit; 1987-89: campaign worker, CHAR housing charity; 1984-87: housing adviser, SHAC homelessness charity; 1984: volunteer case worker, Tyneside Housing Advice Centre.

That was from a Guardian profile of 2006. And of course you have to go to the Guardian to find anything about Singh and his fellow enquiry members because they’re all Guardian people and, indeed, have almost certainly hopped from one job to the next through the Guardian’s recruitment pages. Very few of them have done a day’s work in the productive sector of the economy. These are all professional members of the Quangocracy: left-leaning specialists in such parasitical fields as international relations and human rights law who’ve spent virtually their entire careers doing very nicely thank you working on committees and advisory groups and steering panels and local councils and diversity initiatives, their ringfenced salaries and pensions paid for by you the taxpayer.

Darra Singh, the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus and former chief executive of Ealing and Luton councils, will chair the panel, which will also include Simon Marcus, the founder of the Boxing Academy in London, Baroness Sherlock, previously chief executive of the National Council for One Parent Families, and Heather Rabbatts, a former barrister.

Was that really the best they could come up with? Actually that’s a rhetorical question. Of course it wasn’t. About the only name on the list that inspires a glimmer of confidence is Simon Marcus. The rest of the panel just smacks of liberal tokenism. And I don’t mean a skin colour thing. I’d welcome a panel with still more black people on it but why not black people who actually understand the nature of the problem Tony Sewell, say; Katharine Birbalsingh rather than ones more likely to tread on eggshells rather than engage with it.

Here for example is what Tony Sewell said in the aftermath of the riots:

“…..for, despite the attempts of some apologists to dress up the looting as a political act against an oppressive Tory establishment, the fact is that the ethos of materialism — or ‘bling’ to use the street term — that pervades urban black youth played a major part in the widespread criminality perpetrated by rioters of all races.

That is why the looters targeted specific stores that are cherished in this culture, such as those selling mobile phones, trainers, sports clothes or widescreen TVs. Let’s face it, there were no reports of the vandals looting bookshops or public libraries.

What motivated the troublemakers was not genuine poverty but rather a raw acquisitiveness that is fuelled by so much in this black-led youth culture, from the imagery in rap videos to the lyrics of hip-hop music. The twin central themes of this world are sex and material possessions….”

As Rod Liddle noted, the BBC’s Robert Peston would no doubt loved to have poured scorn on this kind of “nasty ignorance”, as he did with David Starkey. Tragically he couldn’t because Sewell is black.

Here was the perfect opportunity for David Cameron to demonstrate that he wasn’t all mouth and no trousers, that he genuinely understood that the riots were a game changer: the point where years of ingrained political correctness, welfarism and state-endorsed grievance came to a head in a petulant outburst of wanton destruction and naked greed, and the point where the law-abiding majority in Britain realised that they’d had enough of this socialistic hell and wanted a government that would do the right thing and give them their country back.

Ain’t going to happen, clearly.

Related posts:

  1. Cameron to appoint new Personal Hygiene Czar
  2. Question Time: is that panel really the best they can do?
  3. Rodney King saved my life
  4. I’m glad that the BNP’s Nick Griffin is appearing on Question Time

 

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

 

Lib Dems: Now Even Less Popular than the BNP

The Lib Dem party today

The Lib Dem party today

Please can someone explain to me the point of the Lib Dems: so loony left they make Labour look like Thatcherites; so eco-bonkers they make the Green party look like the Tea Party; yet bizarrely currently engaged in pervy, masochistic coition with a Conservative-dominated Coalition.

Something’s got to give hasn’t it? And whoops, it just has!

From the Barnsley Central by-election come tidings so joyous it’s like winning the Lottery on the same day that Al Qaeda renounces violence, England win the World Cup simultaneously in every sport ever invented, and in your home laboratory you finally discover the elixir of eternal youth: the Lib Dems the totally useless, impossible-to-justify-on-any-grounds-whatsoever Lib Dems have been beaten by virtually everyone except the raving Loony party.

I know certain political savants are going to disagree with me. Nick Boles, for example: he’d like his party’s bizarro love-in with the Lib Dems to go on till the end of time. But I can’t help thinking this is a win-win situation for anyone who still likes to delude himself that Britain has a smidgen of a future.

Important sign number 1: UKIP came second. Ed West rightly sees the significance of this. It’s a shot across the bows of all those Tory leftist appeasers and fellow travellers such as Ken Clarke and, er, Nick Boles who have been getting far, far too cocky of late.

Important sign number 2: it came a day after Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg’s grotesquely irresponsible speech defending multiculturalism. In Luton, of all places. Obviously one can see what he was trying to do: find some clear orange water (horrible thought) between himself and Dave. Problem is, until such time as demographics bring us permanent status as the UK branch of the Umma, pretending that the massive social division, grievance-mongering, taxpayer-waste, ghetto-building and terrorism-fostering which have been brought about by the suicidal philosophy of multiculturalism is not duh! going to prove a massive vote-winner.

Related posts:

  1. Who gives a monkeys what the Lib Dems say or do at their pointless seaside conference?
  2. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock
  3. In praise of patrons – particularly mine
  4. A little light Islamist propaganda to liven up your Sunday

6 thoughts on “Lib Dems: now even less popular than the BNP”

  1. Nige Cook says:4th March 2011 at 11:30 pmThe Lib Dems are politically incorrect, but for the wrong reasons. Instead of having a politically incorrect right policies, they have politically incorrect wrong ones. This is clearly due to incompetence and ignorance, not the apathy and delusion of the socialists and Tories behind our costly and undemocratic EUSSR membership.Nick Clegg needs to read Delingpole’s book, “How to be right”. The Lib Dems, Tories and Labour are now all clones of Lenin, and it is only by going right that the Lib Dems will be able to capture votes from disaffected Cons and labs who object to our EUSSR membership, our eco-Nazi carbon credit trading propaganda, and the crippling costs these involve which would be better spend on public services, lower taxes, and other economic recovery measures at a time of recession. (If our withdrawl from the EUSSR leads Germany and France to ban imports of British goods, good, we’re got a trade deficit anyway and we can retaliate by banning any imports of German and French cars, wine, beer, and food, and banning holidays to those countries too. Thugs respect toughness, not appeasement.)
  2. Chris P says:5th March 2011 at 4:24 amWow lenin and nazi in one paragraph. Your stupidity and name calling gets worse by the week.What a worthless piece of work you are.

    The Chinese couldn’t even employ you in one of their factories because you are no good at anything but writing drivel.

  3. Nige Cook says:5th March 2011 at 7:42 amChris, if you can concentrate on the substance of what I wrote, and not your favourite buzz words like worthless and drivel, then let’s face it: the costly and pseudoscientific eco-eugenics and EUSSR dictatorship policies sneaked into Westminister by the successive Con/Lab Governments were originated by Hitler and Lenin, respectively. Hitler came up the “brilliant” idea of pesudoscientific fearmongering circumvent democracy. He used eugenics, while our Government renames it eco-political-correctness. But the science behind it is the same: vacuous. And people will die needlessly by green liars diverting money from water and sanitation into carbon credit traders and green pension funds for the BBC and the Guardian journalists/readers (who seem to be savvy financially, despite backing a regime whose debt legacy will cripple this country for decades). Lenin said communism is Soviet power plus electrification. Soviet power = dictatorship = EUSSR. I’m sure you’re not aware of the EUSSR problems, and the analogy to the money squandering the the USSR that finally bankrupt it.In his Gettysburg speech, President Abraham Lincoln defined democratic rule as: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

    Communism brought 70 years of undemocratic militarist cruelty, and created a minority rule by a dedicated, passionate “elite” of true believers who would not accept they were wrong until they bankrupt themselves. Having lived through one socialist dictatorship, Václav Klaus, the second President of the Czech Republic, and former Czech Prime Minister and Finance Minister, warned of another in the December 2003 European Journal:

    “The creeping unification of Europe … since the time of Jacques Delors [has been] managed by the bureaucrats from Brussels behind the back of the continent’s population, behind the back of the citizens of individual member states.”

    The European Union is undemocratic in its basic construction: in Britain, all mainstream parties have been pro-European Union. Therefore, the electorate has not given any democratic referendum or effective choice on the issue of EC membership. Like the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, it is effectively a one party shambles masquerading as democracy. The question of the existence of the EU is not on the agenda, so if even if you are elected a Member of the European Parliament, you are just in the position of the greasy pole climbers of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact elite. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European Union was formed on 1 January 1995, but its roots go back to the European Coal and Steel Community formed on 23 July 1952. The analogy to the Soviet Union may sound absurd because of the lack of a military threat, but its dictatorial controls and money-squandering inefficiency are both precisely analogous to the Soviet Union’s bureaucratic officialdom.

    Since the European court in Strasbourg was created in 1959, it has passed 418 judgements that have reduced British parliamentary control, of which over 100 have been outright overturning of U. K. court rulings and these have mostly resulted from the passing of the 1998 signing of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its latest injustice, masquerading as a human right, is the “right” of convicted prisoners to vote; allowing criminal politicians get the votes they need from felons!

    Why should Nick Clegg emulate them, if he wants to win the next election?

    The Lib Dems have no future trying to be yet another clone of the anti-democratic pro-EUSSR liars. Britain is not just paying interest on its debts, it’s also paying out £48,000,000 a day to the European Union. Compliance with European Union regulations (some 75% of Britain’s laws are now made in Brussels by the European Union) is also expensive for all U. K. businesses, the legal system, prisons, and other Government departments.

    Other European Union member states generally hate Britain politically (with good reason in some respects, seeing Britain’s political system and its recent history) and try to vote against Britain whenever possible. Germany pays 22,200 million Euroes (MEs) into the EU budget, and takes out only 12,200 MEs. However, it is still worthwhile for Germany to be in the EU, because Germany has a 70,800 ME trade surplus with the EU. The same goes for France and Italy.

    Britain, however, is in the opposite situation, with a 49,400 ME trade deficit with the EU (all of these data are for 2010, annualized from the October 2010 monthly figures). Britain doesn’t therefore benefit from trading with other EU countries: it loses out by doing so. If the interdependence of trade with the EU was helping Britain, it would have a trade surplus with the EU like Germany does, not a trade deficit with the EU. We import more from Europe than we sell to Europe.

    Quite apart from this financial, legal, and trade drawback to the European Union for Britain, we have the problem of unemployment, with the Government in 2004 falsely forecasting an influx of 13,000 migrants from new European Union members, when the figure was actually about a million. This is great when there are a shortage of workers, but it is bad news when unemployment is high and taxes for those employed has to rise still higher to provide for the increased benefits payouts.

    Finally, we have the extravagance of the European Union’s 137 new embassies worldwide costing £5.8 billion and employing an army of 7,000 people, including 46 lucky staff who will be located in Barbados (don’t worry, there will be lots of inspections of the Barbados EU embassy by happy officials flying over from Brussels to keep up the efficiency).

    The new London EU embassy at 32 Smith Square cost £20,000,000 to buy and £5,600,000 to renovate with a wood-decked roof terrace, and with all 68 staff provided with an £800 Herman Miller Mirra office chair accompanied by an Italian £400 Artemide designer lamp. The EU is so inefficient financially that its accounts were last signed off by auditors 16 years ago. Prime Minister Blair’s “spin-doctor”, Lord Mandelson, was paid a basic salary (excluding the generous expenses) of £182,500 in his final year as European Commissioner for Trade. Because of this EU wastage and the public’s perceived cover-up over the Iraq War, the increasing financial cutbacks will return us to a 1930s Great Depression where the flexible deterrent security needed for emerging threats from countries like Iran will both economically and politically incorrect. The Soviet Union was crushed by economic failure, inefficiency, and manipulated oil prices. The same fate awaits backers of the European Union.

  4. Nige Cook says:5th March 2011 at 8:50 amLeo McKinstry (Daily Express, 4 March 2011, page 12): “Yesterday, in response to mounting outrage about the destruction of our sovereignty, the Government had the nerve to claim that membership of the European Union ‘is in the national interest of the UK.’ … How can the obliteration of our self-governance possibly be in our own national interests? …“There is nothing more grotesque than the spectacle of an unaccountable European court giving us lectures about prisoners’ voting rights when not a single European judge has ever been voted into office. Now comes yet another EU outrage, imposed with the collusion of our enfeebled Government. Thanks to a new EU law tens of thousands of migrants from countries in Eastern Europe will soon be able to come and claim full welfare benefits. In 2004, when the eight former Soviet-dominated nations including Poland, the Czech Republic and Latvia were given membership of the EU, the Labour government imposed restrictions that meant newcomers from those states were not entitled to social security. … But now seven years on those restrictions are about to be lifted. Arrivals … will be allowed to claim housing benefit, jobseekers’ allowance and council tax benefit. … The result is certain to be a disaster for our country, pushing up the welfare bill and increasing the strain on our public services. … Once again the madness of borderless Europe has triumphed over national economic realities.

    “Immigration is already completely out of control in this country with more than 500,000 people arriving here every year. The new EU law will wreck the coalition’s plans to reform the bloated, unsustainable welfare system. In the teeth of vociferous opposition from the Left and sentimental protests from pressure groups Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is trying to push through changes that will restrict entitlements to social security, encourage more people into work and reduce the mammoth £200billion annual cost of welfare, by far the biggest single item of Government expenditure. But all his efforts will be shot to pieces by an EU measure that will drastically drive up the claimant count, promote idleness and further undermine social cohesion.

    “The same mandarins told us, when the eight former Soviet nations joined the EU, that just 13,000 migrants from Eastern Europe would come here. The total has been well over one million. Moreover the political elite has presented mass immigration as a vehicle for prosperity. In truth it has just brought higher taxes, economic decline, falling wages and social breakdown.”

  5. Martin Lack says:5th March 2011 at 2:05 pmNige – You have previously said that you do not have time to waste but, what else do you actually do apart from posting the vacuous “bravado and bullshit” that is indeed so typical of the blogosphere (a trait my blog was apparently suspended for identifying)?
  6. Nige Cook says:5th March 2011 at 3:46 pmMartin, I’m a programmer and technical author. If your environmental politics masters course doesn’t allow you time to answer the scientific facts I gave earlier athttp://delingpoleworld/blog/freeman-dyson-v-the-independent-1324/

    then please recognise that you’re the one abusing science with your self-aggrandising pomp. Maybe that explains why you just spend your time as a troll, instead of engaging in genuine scientific discussions? If you don’t want to discuss science, please don’t attack those who do. Cheers!

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

I’d Rather My Wife Made Land Mines Than Worked in the Wind Farm Industry

If there’s an industry in the world that deserves to be stigmatised more than any other, it’s the despicable, reprehensible, money-grubbing, mendacious, taxpayer-fleecing, bird-mangling, landscape-ruining, economy-blighting wind farm business. At least you could argue that blood diamonds make nice jewellery and that land mine manufacturers are making a valuable contribution to infantry defence. But wind farms are not merely worthless but actively evil – and anyone involved in them deserves to be as pilloried and despised as estate agents were in the Eighties or bankers are now.

For chapter and verse on why they are such an abomination, I must refer you to Dr John Etherington’s definitive The Wind Farm Scam, which explains in comprehensive and unarguable detail precisely why wind farms are one of the most inefficient forms of power generation since the human treadmill and why they can only ever possibly be economically viable with the help of massive (and entirely unjustified) taxpayer subsidy.

And then there’s the recent Spanish experience. From Steve Goreham’s superb book Climatism – about the many disasters that have been caused by the global warming religion – we learn that Spain’s concerted government-funded drive towards wind and solar power has been an utter catastrophe. Electricity costs have risen by 60 per cent while the 50,000 “green jobs” it created cost 571,000 Euros per job via government subsidy, effectively losing 2.2 jobs in the real economy for every one created in the green one.

Now, we learn today, the wife of Britain’s deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is to take a lucrative job in this vibrant, go-ahead industry. Miriam Gonzalez Durantez – as she chooses to call herself, presumably because it sounds a lot classier than Mrs Clegg – will be acting as an independent adviser to Acciona, the world’s largest wind farm supplier.

Apparently, to avoid any “conflict of interest”, she will not be advising it on any of its British projects. Oh, right. And presumably she’ll also be knocking off her salary that portion of Acciona’s profits – courtesy of UK taxpayer subsidy – made from building the four wind farms our economy and landscape need about as much as we need an outbreak of nuclear war or John Prescott or Ebola.

PS Some of you seem to be under the impression that I don’t love you or that I have not been fighting your corner over the great (Telegraph) comment redesign. You should be ashamed of yourselves for making such unfounded accusations. Who do you think it was, for example, who insisted on having Gulfvictim’s comment restored the other day? I am doing what I can and have been assured that my blog especially will be kept moderation-light. Obviously, I shall be monitoring this with as much interest as you will. But FFS, some of you, give me the benefit of the doubt and get off my case.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts
  2. We need to talk about wind farms…
  3. Wind Farm Fanatics Are Bankrupting Us With Their Hot Air
  4. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report

14 thoughts on “I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry”

  1. crownarmourer says:10th June 2010 at 3:42 amSorry for the nonsense today had to test the limits of the filter you have on the blogs over on the DT, you are fighting an uphill battle to get them to stop censoring the words muslim and gay and race etc. Swearing is out but that is a minor inconvenience as I managed to get away with merkins. The format is hard to navigate but not I’m sure everyone will get used to it. A smirking duckham lording it over all is galling and I’m missing captainsherlocks Quebecois Lesbian assassins or as we now have to call them Quebecois Saphist assassins.
    Some of the old crowd are now just lurking now and would rather post here then on the DT and on our new bunker over at ozboys. Theepilogue admitted over there to be being mister mutltiple personality and it was a deliberate plan of his to scupper your blog. Feel free to pop over occasionally and chat people are angry right now but that will pass.
  2. crownarmourer says:10th June 2010 at 3:43 amDo they make landmines in different colours for the fashion conscious army.
  3. crownarmourer says:10th June 2010 at 3:46 amI will stay and post on your regular blog as I refuse to surrender and what is it with Damien T’s avatar he looks like a demented ferret wearing a mop you may wish to tell him.
  4. Tom Forrester-Paton says:10th June 2010 at 6:07 amI have to smile at all this wrangling over moderation, as I have tried umpteen times to register at the DT and have yet to be rewarded with the promised email confirming my registration. I sent an email asking for assistance and, mirabile dictu, received a reply from one Alan Edwards of “Telegraph Direct”, who came across as being a couple of coupons short of a toaster, but promised to look into it. He eventually replied saying I should wait a couple of days and try again.

    Same result.

    Sent him another email.

    Silence has ensued.

    Still, at least I can come here and help turn the spit on which M-B-P roasts, slowly…

  5. EyeSee says:10th June 2010 at 7:39 amHmmm. I know what you mean, but even so maybe land mines was a bit wide of the mark. Strange isn’t it, how ideas get rooted. In Victorian times, civic duty, manners and philanthropy were the ‘big things’, now we have quasi-religions of environmentalism and AGW, which unfortunately are entirely negative. The Victorians had a noble history of effort and industry, capability and care. We are likely to be remembered for stupidity.
  6. theunbrainwashed says:10th June 2010 at 9:10 amTom Forrester-Paton says:
    June 10, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Shocking Schtuff!!!

    You’re a good soldier
    Choosing your battles
    Pick yourself up
    And dust yourself off
    And back in the saddle

  7. theunbrainwashed says:10th June 2010 at 9:10 am:-)
  8. aurelian says:10th June 2010 at 9:26 am@Tom Forrester-Paton on June 10, 2010 at 6:07 am
    I had the same problem. Telegraph activation emails never arrived at my NTLworld.com account.

    The solution is to create yourself a proxy email account (at for example http://www.yahoo.co.uk) and quote that email address when registering with the Telegraph. You’ll then receive the activation email at your proxy account.

    Curiously, having set my proxy account to forward all traffic to my NTLworld account, I found that the forwarded Telegraph emails came through fine. Perhaps the Telegraph just doesn’t support certain ISPs’ email operations.

  9. i_was_ferret says:10th June 2010 at 6:09 pmcrownarmourer says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Who are you calling demented !-)

    ferret

  10. Peter Crawford says:10th June 2010 at 8:39 pmThere have never been any moderation issues on this blog. If you dozy cuntybollox had ever bothered to look before some Guardian reader successfully put a bat up your nightdresses.
    Here on Anglesey the farmers get paid £1500 a year to have wind turbines erected on their fields. That is £1500 per turbine per year. Nice work if you can get it.
    But don’t worry. It is all paid for by “The Government”.

    Regards
    Pete

  11. Phillip says:10th June 2010 at 9:00 pmPeter Crawford: The Anglesey farmers must be a bit backward. The going rate is £k10 to £15k per turbine per year. It’s still only a tiny % of the money the owners make from us electricity consumers.
  12. crownarmourer says:11th June 2010 at 1:34 amSo what your saying they really are such things as winfarms and windfarmers, ooh ahh got me a purdy gud crop of lectric this summer.
  13. Edward Longshanks says:11th June 2010 at 6:06 amTom Forrester-Paton says:
    June 10, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Hi Tom,

    Yeah I know what you mean, had the exact same problem.
    Got myself another Email address, try gmx or hotmail etc and try it at DT, you’ll get in no problem.

    regards, Ed.

  14. Peter Sterling says:19th June 2010 at 12:43 pmThere is enough wind offshore from the UK to power the entire country and the cars 4 times over.

    The solution to the very high cost of today’s old technology wind turbines is to replace them with sterling accelerated wind turbines. These jet-speed turbines will operate for twice the annual hours and make 3-4 times the power. Thus making wind electricity cheaper than any other power plant….. and they can’t kill birds.

    Intermittent wind energy can easily and cheaply be stored in conventional pumped-hydro schemes in Scotland’s hills and valleys. These can be made to improve the natural environment and make wildlife flourish.

    See; http://www.zero-carbon-energy.com/pumped-hydro.htm

    If you actually took the time to study it you would see that accelerated wind is the world’s answer to cheap, clean, forever energy independence.

    Wind farm developers merely have to move from the propeller age to the jet age to save England from the tyranny of fossil fuel blackmail.

    See; http://www.all-natural-energy.com/

Comments are closed.

Cameron’s first stupid mistake | James Delingpole

May 5, 2010

Not content with having destroyed British conservatism, David Cameron has decided he might as well go the whole hog and finish off the British economy as well.

He announced it yesterday as one of his key priorities if and when he forms his Coalition of the Suicidal with Nick Clegg. He said he would make “the creation of a low carbon economy a priority.”

Presumably – demonstrating that same sophistication that secured his party such a spectacular popular mandate in the General Election – Cameron imagined he was being frightfully clever. ‘Here’s a sop I can easily afford to give the Lib Dems, without betraying any of my party’s core principles’ kind of thing.

No Dave. I hate to tell you this but committing Britain to a low-carbon economy is not like committing yourself to keeping all phone boxes painted red or promising Britain will never join a currency it was never going to join in a million years anyway.

A low carbon economy is virtually the same thing as NO economy.

It means:

1. Committing your country – at the enormous expense of at least £18 billion a year – to combatting an entirely imaginary problem called CO2, which is plant food, and which makes no serious contribution to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

2. Losing 2.2 real jobs for every “Green job” you subsidise with taxpayers’ money.

3. Crippling industry with higher fuel costs and greater tax and regulation at the very moment in the economic cycle when what it needs is cheap, reliable energy, a slashing of red tape and lower taxation.

4. Squandering still more money on “alternative energy” sources, all of which are enormously expensive, none of which work.

If Cameron tries to push this sort of legislation through, our only hope is that he will be torn apart by the Furies within his party, many of whom are as AGW-sceptical as they are Euro-sceptical.

I agree entirely with Harry Mount: if I were a proper Conservative who’d squandered five years of my life paying lip service to the Cameroons’ liberal pieties in the belief that this would get me into government I should be perfectly livid right now and itching for revenge. Cameron has failed his party and failed his country. He deserves all the lack of the support we can possibly give him.

Related posts:

  1. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain
  2. Are lefties incredibly stupid or just plain evil?
  3. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  4. So much for Cameron’s Cuties…

3 Responses to “Cameron’s first stupid mistake”

  1. Quixote says:May 10, 2010 at 4:15 pmCarbon Trading as of this week should not be mentioned in any “positive terms”, specially by a Political Leader looking to impress his citizens who just elected him.Didn’t he read the papers last week showing that the Carbon Emissions Trading monopoly is under criminal investigation and up to 90% of all participants could be considered “acting unlawfully”?

    This “fake” investment industry will basically destroy the World Economy once again just like the hedge fund debacle two years ago, and don’t ya know who the architect of both these debacles is?. One man who founded the CCX, Richard Sandor.

    Read it at: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532610

  2. Karyn McDermott says:May 11, 2010 at 3:28 pmJames, I know you take an interest in US politics and like my good friend the Virginia A-G Ken Cuccinelli. BYW i was up at 6.am and saw you on FNC – they wonderred after your segment if the UK used the “Hopey Changey” thing also…..Senator Jim deMint said the following and I thought you might find it of interest…

    “I don’t know that I’m always going to be right, but I do know this: I’m not going to sit on the sidelines again. When we tell people we’re the conservative party … I want to make sure we have people sitting in those seats who really mean it.”

  3. kurt janson says:May 12, 2010 at 1:16 pm“We need to cut our carbon emissions to tackle
    the challenge of climate change. But the
    low carbon economy also provides exciting
    opportunities for British businesses. We will
    encourage private sector investment to put
    Britain at the forefront of the green technology
    revolution, creating jobs and new businesses
    across the country.”This quote comes from the Conservative Manifesto – maybe if you’d read it, the announcement yersterday wouldn’t have been a surprise.