You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Come What May' tag.
This headline isn't mine, but James Delingpole's. In the latest issue of The Spectator he interviews a man who has the courage to go against the bite-size, easy to digest and fashionable mantra that "man is killing the planet." I absolutely urge you to read it.
Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, who is seeking to blow open the debate on climate change. He doesn’t deny that the climate is changing (who could?) but he does question whether or not mankind is responsible.
“I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people…is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.”
Plimer isn’t a “right wing climate change denier” as the Left would have us believe. He is a practical, rational scientist who doubts the prevailing dogma. And he’s not alone. Whenever we hear about the doomsday scenario of dying polar bears, great floods and extinction we always hear from the same people; those that have made a career out of scaring us. These people in turn double up as “experts” used to justify ever higher levels of taxation. Until the BBC recognise that “climate change” is a debate (with various levels of opinion) then you’ll just have to dig around a bit if you want to explore the other side of the issue.
Of course we should recycle more. Of course it would be better not to pollute the atmosphere. Of course we should protect natural habitats. But as human beings (who have only been on this planet for the blink of an eye) we also have a responsibility to look beyond our own impact, and try to understand that the planet (and its changes) are bigger than us.
As Plimer points out, there’s a lot of scientific information that contradicts prevailing climate change theory:
“Polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time…extinctions of life are normal…climate changes are cyclical and random…the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life…CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food…the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.”
Just open you minds to the debate, and look beyond the alarmist headlines of the BBC and the Guardian.
Last night, I did something that I’ve never done before. I watched The One Show on the BBC. I’ve never watched this before because I assumed that it was just mindless chit chat about funny shaped crisps, presented by an irritating Brummie and a dim-witted pretty face. (It turns out, by the way, that I was pretty much spot on with this assumption). However, I’m currently lacking Sky TV and so had to flick through the old fashioned channels to find something to watch.
My attention was caught when I heard the Brummie pose the question, “Is nationalisation a good thing?” They then went to some oaf (or “roving reporter” as they’re known on The One Show) who told us that everything was perfect in the 1970s and that the “era of enterprise” that was the 1980s ruined this for ever. I promise you that I thought he was being sarcastic, but after watching a bit more it turned out that he actually believed this to be true. Well, I wasn’t around in the 70s but I’ve heard the horror stories of power shortages, bodies going unburied, aggressive trade unionism, inefficiency and a general sense of national decay. According to the BBC’s reporter, this was all blown away by the nasty rise of free enterprise and that evil word, competition.
To back up his point, he asked a few members of the public what they thought of privatisation. Whilst one or two suggested that competition was a good thing, the editor clearly preferred those that followed the line “making money is evil…public services are vital…the public sector is marvellous….nationalisation is great.” I was so furious, that I had to update my Facebook status telling everyone how furious I was. (This is, after all, the easiest way for me to vent anger).
After neatly summing up that nationalisation was good and privatisation was bad, the reporter signed off and the irritating Brummie with his pretty co-host went back to talking about Strictly Come I’m Hardly a Celebrity on Ice. I humbly suggest that they stick to such mindless topics in the future, and leave political analysis to those that truly understand what the 70s were like, and why the Thatcherite revolution was so necessary.
News of my departure from YBF was announced first on Tory Bear last night, and now that it’s official I thought I’d use this week’s piece to share my thoughts on what has been an excellent 12 months for me.
I first came into contact with YBF whilst still at University, and I was immediately impressed by the training that they offered to young activists. I attended a TV training workshop at 18 Doughty St with Donal Blaney and Shane Greer, and though I didn’t know it at the time, this was the start of a career with the Young Britons’ Foundation that would take me around the world and open my eyes to the international conservative movement.
It wasn’t long after that TV training workshop that Shane rang me up offering me his job. Apparently he was off to work on some new magazine. I later learnt that Donal was concerned about my views on global warming after he interviewed me on his Doughty St show, but luckily (for us both) I was more of a sceptic by the time I started working for him.
Working at YBF is an excellent job for a graduate. Rather than just being one of many “grad trainees” at a large company, I was helping to run the organisation from day one. Working for Donal also provided me with an excellent insight into the UK and international conservative movements. The work was varied and rewarding. One day I’d be planning our events at Party Conference, the next day I’d be in Edinburgh training activists. I travelled all over the UK, and of course visited Washington and California several times too.
I shall leave YBF with a host of great memories; YBF5, our training at Conference, the New Year Party, the trips to America, the Parliamentary Freedom Rally, the national campus tours and the day-to-day work of fundraising, talking to donors and planning training events.
I shall remain extremely grateful to Donal for giving me such opportunities and for teaching me so much about activism and conservative politics. Steven Dent is going to have a great time at YBF, and I only hope that he enjoys it as much as I did. I will be helping out from my new position on the YBF Advisory Panel, and wherever I go I shall continue to believe in the importance of YBF’s work.
Ed: We wish Christian success wherever his career choices take him, and we echo his sentiments to our friend Steven Dent – we can’t think of a better or more enviable job!
A leaking, worn out old ship limps into port. The sails are tattered, the crew is mutinous and the vessel’s once strong reputation has been diminished. A new crew stands ready to take over and bring the ship back up to to its former glory. However, the outgoing crew (in an act of malice that so becomes their weary state) makes a final decision to saddle the incoming crew with an incompetent and disliked lookout. He sits in the crow’s nest, delighted with his new position. He doesn’t care that the incoming crew neither trust him nor want him.
The incumbent crew have lost sight of why they went to sea in the first place. Over the course of their journey they have turned on each other and ultimately replaced a successful Captain with one that promptly put them on the rocks. Morale is low, and the high spirits that they set sail with, 12 years ago, are now distant memories. They know that they will soon be replaced by a crew with fresh ideas, a sense of purpose and a course plotted by the stars in the sky.
Rather than hand the ship over with honour and dignity, the order goes out that a final act of spite will be to impose one of their own feeble lot to watch over the incoming crew. The man they select is one who has changed ships many times in his career, and has shown himself to lack even the faintest trace of principle or direction. Yet this is the man that the outgoing crew lumber the great Ship of State with. They do it with the grins of petty children, and they do it with the knowledge that whilst their sailing careers are coming to end, they can have the last laugh by leaving one of their own on board.
From the shore, observers point out that this situation is absurd. It’s clear, they cry, that the new lookout won’t have the trust of the new crew. But the world of sailing isn’t what it once was, and such decisions are taken not with the best interests of the voyage in mind, but with an eye to scuppering an incoming crew. People gather on the shore, hoping that the will and determination of those waiting to take over the helm is not dampened by any further actions of the vengeful and pathetic acts of an old crew, no longer fit to command the waves.
The irony is not lost on me. Popular government? It’s been a while since we had one of those. But my article this week isn’t going to look at the unpopularity of Brown’s government. No, I’m going to look at the much more important issue of how democratic his government is.
“Democratic renewal” and “democratic councils” are phrases that Brown has been throwing around for weeks, but what do they mean in practice? And can a man with such weak democratic support possibly be the one to “renew” democracy in this country?
I hosted an event with the author Frederick Forsyth at Cambridge University a few weeks ago, and his topic of discussion was the European Union’s lack of democratic legitimacy. He said that “today the word ‘democracy’ is blown around like leaves in an autumn wind.” Whilst he may have been talking about the EU (and by the way, he was right on that) the same can be said for Brown’s great plans for constitutional and democratic renewal. Trusting Gordon Brown to repair democracy is like trusting Lex Luthor with the keys to the Kryptonite store; he’s got form and he shouldn’t be trusted
Let’s just look at Brown’s track record of engaging with democracy. He bottled out of a leadership contest with Blair when New Labour was formed. He bullied his own Party into not fielding a candidate against him when Blair stood down. He bottled a planned general election when the polls suggested he might lose. He has taken his Party to its lowest electoral position in a century. He lied about giving the country a vote on the European Constitution. His new Cabinet (the one tasked with renewing democracy) is one of the least democratic in living memory.
This latter point is worthy of closer examination. Let’s start at the top.
Prime Minister – not elected by the country.
First Secretary of State (that’s Mandy) – not elected by anybody.
Secretary of State for Transport – not elected by anybody.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – not elected by anybody.
Attorney General – not elected by anybody.
Plus a further 8 Under Secretaries of State and 4 Ministers of State (including the Europe Minister) who have never faced a public vote, do not represent a constituency and lack any kind of democratic accountability.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Why has Brown filled his cabinet with unelected cronies? The answer is simple; he doesn’t have enough loyal or capable MPs. Remember that everything Brown does is designed to strengthen his own position. If he is really committed to the principles of democracy, he would recognise that he has no legitimacy and call an immediate general election.
There are many conservatives out there, including senior members of the conservative movement, who are delighted with the news that Gordon Brown is, for now, staying on as leader. Many speculate that David Cameron himself also breathed a sigh of relief when it looked like Brown had managed to survive Monday’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. However, I for one do not take such a view. We must remember the cry, “Country before Party.”
Keeping Gordon Brown on as PM will certainly mean that the Labour Party will continue to flounder in the polls, but won’t somebody please think of the country? Brown humiliates us on the world stage (why haven’t the papers made a bigger deal about the “Obama beach” gaff?) and he has done more to ruin the credibility of politics and the integrity of Parliament than any previous occupant of No. 10. Here’s a little anecdote that gives a flavour of how dysfunctional the government is:
On Saturday I was chatting to a friend of mine who works for a hedge fund company. He was explaining that new European regulations on this industry will cost UK hedge funds hundreds of millions of pounds. So serious is the situation that many firms are openly talking about packing up and leaving the UK. The group representing UK hedge fund firms took it’s concerns to a lobbying company, desperate for the government to hear their voices. They were told, in no uncertain terms, that the ‘government’ (such as it is) was exclusively concerned with the political state of the Labour Party and therefore was simply not interested in listening to their representations.
So there you have it. I’m sure this kind of experience is being repeated right across industries, charities and organisations. The government is more concerned with its own survival than with the survival of the country.
It is for that reason that I still want Gordon Brown to go. I want a General Election. I am confident that if such an election were called, the Conservatives would make the case very ably, and form a majority government. For every week that Brown remains in office, more and more damage is being done to politics, the reputation of our country and our chances of a good economic recovery.
Listening to Harriet Harman on Radio 4 this morning, I was reminded of just how awful the New Labour terminology really is. We’ve let them get away with it for far too long, so I present to you my fisking of New Labour-speak:
Progressive. This is a term that the left has latched on to, and all credit to them. I mean, who would want to deny progress? The problem is, Labour’s policies aren’t progressive at all. They are in fact backwards and out of date. It’s a clever piece of linguistic positioning that actually means very little.
Fairness. This is another word that Brown and his (dwindling) colleagues like to trumpet. Again, nobody is going to stand up against it and claim to represent “unfairness.” The thing is, there’s nothing fair about over taxing and under delivering. It’s a nice, fluffy word that gets rolled out when a struggling Minister is asked what the Labour Party stand for.
Diversity. As well as being the winners of a reality TV show, this is also the word New Labour use for “social engineering.” Everyone I know welcomes diversity in society, but only New Labour try to force it through with laws, town planning and central targets.
Equality. “All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” This quote pretty much sums up New Labour’s approach to equality. It’s a noble pursuit, and you’ll hear it again and again in any Ministerial interview, but in reality it means nothing more than divisive and discriminatory central policies being forced on to society and the work place. New Labour don’t care about genuine equality, they care about being seen to care – and this they do through commissions, reports and targets.
Aspiration. This is a one of Gordon Brown’s personal favourites. It’s easy to stand on stage and drone on about aspiration, but in reality New Labour have created a society in which the poor are getting poor, the youth are leaving school unable to read and write, and millions are unemployed. How’s that for something to aspire to?
Can you think of any more?
Reputations can take a lifetime to build, but can be shattered in just a few careless moments. More and more often we see members of Conservative Future getting into hot water because of a Facebook comment, a blog post or a stupid photograph. Part of me thinks that it’s grossly unfair that a national paper can rip off a Facebook comment (out of context) and present it as “news.”
However, the other half of me reluctantly accepts that in this day and age, we’re all fair game as far as the media is concerned. If you put yourself out there, you had better know how the game works. In other words, being an Officer of the Party (however junior) does entail a degree of responsibility that the average student doesn’t have to contend with. With this in mind, there are a few basic rules that should be followed. Some are timeless, but others didn’t apply to the generation before us. I humbly suggest the following.
1. Don’t put anything on Facebook that you wouldn’t be prepared to display in your window.
Facebook is not private. Your “friends” are rarely your friends, and you never know who is watching.
2. Be a team player.
You’re part of a team, and your mistakes can let down those around you too.
3. Never, ever underestimate the power of the internet.
This reinforces point No.1, but also applies to blog comments, twitter and emails. You simply can’t guarantee their security or privacy.
4. Don’t take yourself too seriously.
By all means take pride in your work, but don’t get above yourself. Factional disagreements and petty politics are no good for anyone.
5. Keep things in perspective.
Politics is not the “be all and end all.” You are to be applauded for giving up your time and effort for a political party, but don’t let it take over your life.
6. Don’t forget why you’re doing it.
We all know the kind of person who simply collects titles and positions. Ultimately, this kind of person will be forgotten about very quickly. Work hard, and remember what the goal is. If you’re just interested in playing at politics then go and join the Model UN.
I’m sure we can all think of plenty more, but that’s a start. Don’t think of the above 6 points as some sort of official rule book, because it isn’t. They’re merely my own personal thoughts and observations based on experience. The basic point is this: don’t do anything daft! If you’d rather be a normal student with a debauched Facebook profile then go ahead. Just don’t do it whilst claiming to represent a political party at the same time.
I was invited on to BBC Radio Sheffield yesterday to discuss the Parliamentary expenses scandal, but unfortunately a power cut in their studio meant that I never made it to the air. So here’s what I would have said.
I can understand, if not defend, the system fiddling that Labour MPs have been indulging in: it is in their nature as left-wingers to “claim what they’re entitled to.” Most Labour MPs have come from trade unions, public bodies, the public sector etc – where expenses are the norm and the lefties that work there claim back the price of a latte.
So that, in my opinion, is why the left are so embroiled in the expenses mess. However, what I cannot understand is why wealthy Tory MPs have been doing the same thing. Firstly, the’yre Tories and as such they are supposed to be on the side of the taxpayer. Secondly, many of them are very wealthy in their own right and this just makes it even harder for the public to accept their claims. The papers have understandably been full of pictures of titled Tory MPs outside their country estates, with details of the absurd and petty expense claims for sunflower seeds, swimming pool upkeep and expensive furniture polish.
Rightly or wrongly, the idea of a wealthy Tory MP claiming for items he could clearly afford will go down worse than the idea of a Labour MP (possibly a former nurse) “flipping” properties in order to claim the maximum allowance. Both MPs are guilty, but the Tory MP will come off worse.
So, if I had made it on to the air yesterday I would have said exactly that. Wealthy Tory MPs who have abused the system should pay it all back, or be sacked. Thank goodness David Cameron has acted so firmly and quickly to this effect. As activists, we simply can’t defend the indefensible.
TYC’s Verdict: Cameron is spot on – if any MP can’t keep their fingers out of the public purse, they should keep their backsides off the green benches.
When leftists speak of one of our greatest ever Prime Ministers, they spit out the word “Thatcher” or “Thatcherism” as if it were some kind of disease – when in fact she, and what she stood for, was the cure for a string of ailments that wounded our country: inefficient industry, union bullying and a crippled economy. Yes, Thatcher was the cure. Like most medicines it may not have suited all palates, but it did the trick and our country grew strong and prosperous.
After a decade of Labour what remains of Thatcher’s legacy? In 1997, Labour inherited an economy on the up. However, it didn’t take long for the “modern Socialist experiment” to squander that golden legacy. As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of Thatcher’s election, the airwaves are polluted by left-wing pundits blaming the current recession on “Thatcherism.” They repeat the line that Thatcher “encouraged deregulation.” You’re damn right she did – but she also encouraged personal responsibility and sound money in Government, and New Labour know nothing of these two maxims.
So when people ask the question, “would Thatcher have got us in this mess?” the answer must be resolutely “no.” I came THIS close to debating this very question on the Jeremy Vine show last week, but I was bumped at the last minute for James Delingpole. James put the case much better than I would have been able to. After all, I wasn’t there.
However, I’m a student of Thatcherism and a victim of New Labour – and let me tell you, Brown may pose on the steps of No 10 with the Iron Lady but the differences between them are immense. Brown favours spin over substance, soundbites over vision and debt over sound money. No my friends, Thatcher wouldn’t have got us in this mess but I bet she’d be able to get us out of it. Let us hope that the modern Conservative Party are as bold as she was in 1979.
Upcoming Major Events
Get Involved
Follow TYC
Show Your Support
