On Thursday US Climate Change hypocrite Al Gore will address David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. He will no doubt be instructing them all on the art of preaching climate change religion bollocks while at the same time creating a carbon footprint the size of a mammoth's. I wonder how many of them will find they have a subsequent engagement...
Al Gore is indeed a hypocrite. He tells the rest of the world to reduce their carbon footprint, while living in a house which has a carbon footprint the size of Tennessee. Gore's heating bill is dozens of times higher than that of virtually every other American. It's a little known fact that George W Bush's Texas ranch is very environmentally friendly. Bush just gets on and does it without makign a song and dance about it. Gore, meanwhile, flies to Hollywood and collects his ill-deserved Oscar from celebrities who have arrived at the ceremony in a gas guzzling strech limo.
I used the phrase "preaching climate change religion bollocks" for a reason, one which seems to have passed the ninety or so people by who have commented on the thread. It has indeed become a religion to those people who like to jump on the bandwagon of such causes. Their fervour reflects the CND marchers of the 1990s. If you speak out against their creed you're attacked as a 'denier', putting you on the same level as a holocause denier. I dislike the messianic side of those like Gore who treat Climate Change as a pseudo religion which if you deign to question you're considered a nutter.
I do question it, but I do it out of curiosity, not out of dogma. Let me make my position clear. I do believe climate change is taking place, but I have an open mind on the extent to which it is (if at all) man made. I am unconvinced by both the Stern Report and the IPCC report, which seems to change its eveidence according to the conclusion. I am prepared to listen to the arguments of the climate change sceptics, just as I am to those I respect on the other side of the argument. The reason I railed against Al Gore is that he does not fall into that last category. Sometime soon I will watch his film - I won't yet call it a documentary. I will also watch the Channel 4 programme from last Thursday (repeated tomorrow on More 4 I think) called THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE SWINDLE. I'll read more on the subject and then make up my mind. My stance at the moment reflects my annoyance at the climate change protagonists who won't brook any argument at all.
No onto the Devil's Kitchen article. He makes a number of assertions in his article as well as using words I don't allow on this blog. Let me repeat some of them...
Can I be the only one who is wondering precisely why Iain Dale is supporting the Tories? Apart from the fact that they are willing to give him a seat, of course... But Iain is a free-trader who is anti-EU. And yet Cameron is pro-EU, and naive enough to believe that he can change it... Iain is also against the state-funding of parties, whereas Cameron is pro.To state this quite clearly and for the avoidance of doubt, Iain Dale is fundamentally opposed to Cameron and the Conservative Party on all of the major issues that the Tories have deigned to pronounce on. And he is not the only one; very far from it, in fact.So what is the motivation? Does Iain know something that we don't; being something of an insider, does he know that the Tories are going to renege on these ideas once in power?... The second option is that Dale and others are merely trying the Matthew Sinclair tactic: they have decided that it is better to try to persuade the Tories of the rightness of their position from within the party... Which leaves us with the third option: that some people will happily support any policies, no matter how wrong they believe those policies to be, in order to gain power.None of those three alternatives fills me with any hope for the future, frankly.
Where to start?! Devil's Kitchen left the Conservatives to join UKIP over one single issue - Europe. He now finds himself out of tune with the Conservatives on any number of issues. On this blog I think I have made fairly clear that I support David Cameron's policy of building a big tent, in the full knowledge that there will be some policy areas where free market, tax cutting Thatcherites like me will have cause to suck our teeth. DK is right that I oppose state funding for political parties, I'm a free trader and that I am a Euro Sceptic. So does this mean, as he implies, that I should leave the Tories and join UKIP? In his dreams.
All political parties are coalitions. And within those coalitions people argue their case. I will argue my case on the issues I care passionately about even if that means that at times I am at odds with the stance of the party hierarchy. I've never once been asked by anyone to tone down my views on this blog.
DK reckons I sometimes pull my punches because I would like to be a candidate at the next election. What they - and others - don't like is when I praise David Cameron for the progress he has made. If I dish out criticism from time to time, then surely I am also entitled to praise Cameron and his team when I really believe they have got something right. Yes, I would like to be an MP, but if I stand at the next election I want to do it in my own way on my own terms. No one likes someone who constantly greases up to the top of the party, but equally, a constant whine of criticism is equally as tedious.
I would never leave the Tory Party. The Tory Party may, on occasion, leave me, but it's then my duty to stay and argue my case. We all know all politics is temporary. Politicians come and politicians go. Policies come and policies go. The one constant are the members of the Party who have to go out and sell the Party on the doorstep. Just because they might disagree with a few of those policies, it doesn't stop them from believing that the Party they have supported through thick and thin will do a damn sight better job of governing the country that the current lot.
I'm a Conservative, a Tory, a free marketeer and a Euro Sceptic. There can be no other Party for me than the Conservative Party. Not now. Not ever.
"I'm a Conservative, a Tory, a free marketeer and a Euro Sceptic. There can be no other Party for me than the Conservative Party. Not now. Not ever."
Are you trying to convince us or yourself?
Chad must be breathing a big sigh of relief your not jumping to that sinking ship known as UKIP.
The Conservatives aren't the only free-market Eurosceptics, you know. Though they are the only ones who will soon be members of an ultra-right wing Euro Parl grouping which doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
Extremely good article Iain, I am a Tory through and through, yet some of the things DC says and the policy kites flown do cause me to have a sharp intake of breath. However, DC understands what is required to get elected, and that is to take the centre ground with you.. I may not like everything he says, nor every policy, but I bite my tongue figuratively speaking for the good of the Party. I GET IT. I may be more right wing than DC, but I understand where he is coming from and why. The Right wing of the Tory Party needs to keep its mouth truly SHUT.
The LEFT wing of the Labour Party couldn't keep its trap shut in the 80's, and Labour as it was then, became unelectable for a generation. I understand this. In Politics, you can never get everything you want, you just have to go with the Party that's going to give you most of what you want, and for me Labour in all it's guises isn't it. As for the Liberals.....Heaven help us!
Rock on DC!
When you say Al Gore is a hypocrite, you must then say that Dave Cameron is one too. Flying to Iceland or where ever for a PR stunt, bike followed by a car... etc etc. On the whole, most politicians are hypocrites when it comes to this issue. They fly and travel a lot more than most people, yet they want to stop others from doing it. Blame the job? Yes, but they can still cut down on a lot of the travelling they are doing.
As for deterring people to fly, give people a reasonable alternative. The trains are much more expensive, slower and unreliable... why would i want to take the train? Even with tax increases flying will still be cheaper than taking the train in many cases. It is ridiculous.
As for global warming, I wish people would shut up about it unless they inform themselves of all the available information.
Iain, i think you would like the views of Bjorn Lomborg, he wrote the "the Skeptical Environmentalist", it's a good read for any politician who wants to ignore climate change.
Excellent Iain. I agree entirely with you. I am at odds with the leadership over State Funding, House of Lords Reform and Climate Change. That did not stop me from delivering crime surveys in Haltemprice and Howden last Friday. I know we Conservatives will make a much better job of governing this country. I have had a go at George Osborne on my blog tonight, but I think he deserves it. The leadership need to be told from time to time what us foot-soldiers think. We are the people who make the Conservative Party work, and we are entitled to our voice.
Iain - thank you for that thoughtful and interesting post. This is your blog and you were under no obligation to explain your position to us. I for one, although not agreeing with all your points, found your position well put.
Iain - you'll stay and argue your case, you say.
And if they don't listen, what then?
Do you get labelled as a trouble-maker, or as Major once commented of Gardiner, was it? "Whenever I hear his name I imagine the flapping of white coats."
By all means support your party if you feel you can, but never, never, ever make that support unconditional, or one day you'll bitterly regret it.
Maggie Thatcher fan notes: "However, DC understands what is required to get elected, and that is to take the centre ground with you." It's the centre that is fleeing in panic from David Cameron.
Oh really , so why are the Tories at 40% in the polls. Michael Howard firmed up the right wing and achieved 33% at the last election. All that did was avoid oblivion, so where are the votes coming from, it's hardly from the left wing of the Labour Party !
Well said for once Iain.
I thought it was rude ONLY because Al Gore is a former US Vice President not because you disagree with him on climate change. I guess I just think that the office deserves a little respect or if not that, a little diplomacy.
The one thing that I find amazing about the Cameron people is that they are almost embarrassed to call themselves Tories. For people who are so keen on branding, that strikes me as dumb.
The decontamination strategy stuff must be morale sappingly depressing for the people on the ground.
You tell em' Iain! Incidentally, have you been approached by the Press Complaints Commission to sit on the new regulatory body which will oversee blogs?
I would say again that Gore he is striving to be 'carbon neutral' and achieves it, that makes his carbon footprint zero. We can't all afford to do that, but then, being rich makes all sorts of things possible.
Tom, I understand what you mean. I wish the same courtesy was extended to President Bush by some of your colleagues too!
Mr Al Globe is a silly fellow and a hypocrite. Just you be as frank as you like about him.
"The one thing that I find amazing about the Cameron people is that they are almost embarrassed to call themselves Tories."
Tom, dream on. I think that the pollsters are having a problem because suddenly more people are now remembering they voted Conservative than actually did in 2005.
Oh really , so why are the Tories at 40% in the polls.
I assume that's an interrogative although there was no question mark. This Labour government is a train wreck. The carriages are up-ended and randomly lying all over the place. The Tories should have leapt ahead in the perceptions of the electorate by now.
Instead, despite the wreckage of Tony Blair's government, there's only around eight percentage points difference.
This doesn't bode well, because Labour is in power and may pull off some actions - ill-considered, but effective for the moment - to pull their points up. The Tories should be 20% ahead by now, at least. Instead, in the face of the wreck that is Tony Blair's government, they're floating ataround eight percent.
Something is wrong. That something is the vapid, vacuous, self-regarding car salesman.
I applaud your dedication and wish I shared it. Here's the thing - the only times I've ever voted in elections, I've voted Tory, but more usually, don't bother - I live in Clifton-Brown's constituency, so it's not like there's much of a contest. For information, I'm a 50-year old professional male with a decent income.
Generally, I'm resigned to not being one of the 200,000 or however many it is, swing voters, to whom the parties are actually talking and pretty much just get on with my life and try to ignore the greedy imbecilic thieves at Westminster.
Haven't ever really connected with Cameron, he's not talking about anything I care overmuch about and he's certainly not talking about anything I do care about - such as small government, low tax and pretty much leaving me alone.
Amazing to note that the buggers aren't even in yet and Osborne is already looking to pick my pocket by increasing the cost of air travel. A bit preemptive, isn't it?
So where do I go? I don't agree with what limited policies I've already heard from the Tories, despise Labour, can't take the Liberal Democrats in any way seriously and wouldn't go with the swivel-eyed types in UKIP or, God Save Us, the BNP.
Where's the "leave me alone" party when you need it?
The reason that the polls are as they are is simply that Labour is collapsing, but the Conservatives have not begun their big push yet.
Cameron seems to be planning on holding back on detailed policy until relatively close to the election. On the various scandals, he is letting the story lead.
By standing back and trying to build a positive image, he distances himself (and the party) from the shanbles on the opposite bench.
Who was it who said "When an enemy is making a mistake it is rude to interupt him"?
When you posted your original article I did not think it controversial as we all know or at least should, that Gore is a hypocrite. I also have a problem with climate change as a religion because it stops debate and discussion which seriously does not help solve the twin problems of climate change, mitigating it, whether man made or not, and energy security.
I do have to wonder why people got so hot under the collar about that?
As for devils kitchen, nice bloke, but does not realise what big party politics is about which is about sticking with people you mostly agree with to gain power rather than those whom you totally agree with who have no chance of power.
That said, as soon as UKIP spreads its platform, it will and indeed has found that it irritates even those in its very small tent.
Iain, and to some extent Tom, "Tom, I understand what you mean. I wish the same courtesy was extended to President Bush by some of your colleagues too!"
Sorry, but I am not a man to mince my words, I call a spade an instrument of horticultural tillage.
On a slightly more serious note if I think some one is wrong I will say so, and I really don't care if I ruffle feathers.
"Mr Gore, your report, documentary and public statements demand that the public, voters and economic stakeholders of the western democracies make enormous sacrifices of money, lifestyle, and convenience. In other words, you demand that that they give up the benefits of 100 years (at least) of western civilization and advance.
What sacrifices have YOU made in these terms?
"All political parties are coalitions"
Yeah, the tent is so big it's bursting with bullshit.......
You do know the Al Gore electricity bill story has been debunked, don't you, Iain?
"Amazing to note that the buggers aren't even in yet and Osborne is already looking to pick my pocket by increasing the cost of air travel. A bit preemptive, isn't it?"
Post of the day, for me.
rush-is-right -- In other words, you demand that that they give up the benefits of 100 years (at least) of western civilization and advance ...
That's the nub of it. And the future agenda is, once you have made the West bend the knee to the notion that progress is evil because it somehow 'hurts' the planet ... you open the door to the islamics, who will scurry in with their theocracy and even fiercer control over thinking.
Why the Marxists ally themselves with the islamics is a puzzle, although I think that they think that if they are regarded as allies, they will somehow be exempt from shariah. Gay lefties who think this are oh-so delusional. As are lefty women. The left is a gateway to shariah.
They want Western civilisation destroyed. That will create a vacuum and shariah will flood in via the foot soldiers who have already secured positions in the West.
This is much more complicated than airline taxes - dressed in its Sunday best as "carbon footprints".
It is very serious. Al Gore is an enemy of the West.
Oh come on Iain. Anyone who reads your blog regularly knows that you're really a Lib Dem.....
Good post, I await your thoughts on the Great Global Warming Swindle (very informative programme). Disclosure: I also agree that climate change is bollocks, and I'm disappointed to see Cameron come out with this tax proposal. I liked it more when the Conservatives were the "I'm all right Jack" party, where hard work and competence is rewarded, not dumbed-down so everyone can be equal (thanks, New Labour). This will backfire for Cameron, I think... I hope some Conservatives will watch the Great Global Warming Swindle and rein in their leader a bit...
Climate change. Hmmmm.
I'm sorry, but it took so long to get to the bottom of all the comments on this post that I appear to have lost the plot completely.
I shall have to beggar off out for a plate of dinner. Sorry!
Nicely said, Tom. (even though it was not in reference to my post)
Verity, you are absolutely right. I used to live next door to the Islamics (they were a noisy bunch, truth be told. They used to play their music loud at night when my family were trying to get to sleep.)
But give them their due, they always had time to speak to me on the street and Mrs Islamic always offered to look after my cat when we went away to the UKIP meetings which we had to attend at the weekends.
Ron's Knees blah blah - Yes, they would look after your cat. But not your dog. A clever creature that is glad to work as part of a team with humans - as in helping to save the earthquake victims in Pakistan I do not believe that British dogs should have been sent over to help in this problem as they had to undergo six months' quarantine when they got back. That is a long time out of a dog's lifespan. Dogs are noble. (I am not a dog person. But they are very fine animals.) The Pakistanis have had years' of opportunity to train their own dogs. But they won't touch dogs. So British dogs went to rescue them in their ignorance and I disapprove of this. If they didn't have dogs and trainers in Pakistan, that means they didn't want them.
It was an earthquake. People die. Especially if they don't have emergency services, like sniffer dogs, in place. So what?
How can you say Gore's Oscar was ill-deserved if you haven't seen his film.
Anónimo dijo: Why should I endure the predictable boredom when I already know the meme?
This climate change panic is very strange. Its almost like mass hysteria.
I`m 52 but can remember doing a project at school in Geography about Global Warming and how it was causing the Sahara to expand both north and south.
There didn`t seem to be much panic then, it was just taught as fact and that better use had to be made of irrigation techniques.
Sorry Iain, but your response to DK's assertions reads not so much like a man speaking his true mind, but as the considered "catch-all" response of a political party member, i.e., wanting as far as possible to set the record straight, yet constrained by the need to 'follow the party line'.
Yes, I do understand where you're coming from, in a way. Major Party Politics is not about calling a spade a spade (not these days, at least, sigh) but about making a gentle, bland mewing sound, designed to appeal to the maximum number of voters. Yes, I understand all that.
However, it is one thing to disagree with a few party policies, but quite another thing when your Party has shifted so radically from its whole ideology, that it can no longer be recognised in any way as the Party it was 20 years ago.
Never in its long history has the leadership of the Conservative Party shifted so radically away from conservative principles. This is something quite unprecedented we are seeing from Cameron. And it's totally unacceptable to the mild-mannered conservative voter on the street.
You know what, I've just decided something: Until the Conservative Party starts acting and speaking like the Conservative Party again, I'm not going to vote UKIP, I'm not going to vote BNP or whoever else - I'm going to vote LABOUR! And I exhort all disenchanted Tories to do likewise. That's right. If you're fed up with Cameron's "new direction", then the only way to get the Con Party back (in the long run) is to Vote Labour. Let's keep these socialist morons in government for as long as it takes until there is an effective Conservative opposition once more.
At least the Labour Party is unabashedly socialist, it does what it says on the tin. I would rather have a government which has principles, even ones I disagree profoundly with, than a government made of men of straw, seeking power at any price.
During World War 2, we all hated the Nazis and fought against them...but at least we afforded them a certain honour as our enemy. There was only one group of people we hated even more than them - the traitors, the quislings and traders who had no principles at all but who merely backed the winning side for their own profit, and who changed sides as often as necessary in order to save their own skins. That is the level of contempt in which I hold the Conservative Party at the moment, under Cameron. Quislings, profiteers, in it only for the main chance. I'll happily vote Labour to keep such quislings out of office.
It's so simple. Read the science - not the politics.
but at least we afforded them a certain honour as our enemy.
You might have done...looking at their situation in Occupied Warsaw my family did not, nor did others taken for medical experiments into Germany; nor those currently marked with Commonwealth War Graves headstones........
Honour - indeed !
You've missed the point on Gore.
He could spend the rest of his life with a fleet of Hummer's ticking over in the drive and will still die having done much more than the elected President of his country to tackle climate change.
I was a Tory once (and really voted for them in 2005). Cameron just confirmed why I cann't be one again until we get real Tory leaders.
Iain, I got around to watching the Global Warming Swindle last night - I've also seen An Inconvenient Truth - both are worth watching.
Man-made or not (and I'm leaning towards not), the most frustrating thing is that politics have hijacked people's aspirations to reduce energy consumption and use cleaner fuels. We should all try and create a cleaner planet and I don't care what the kick-start is and what party people vote for.
Iain, I can't believe what I'm hearing from David Cameron over the last few weeks.
The arguments against heading over to UKIP are well rehearsed, but they hinge on it making a difference who wins the next election.
After this green taxes mess I'm going to take some convincing.
I have listened to you and others on 18DS talking with scepticism or 'denial' about Global warming and thought you completely reckless.
A year or so ago I started buying the Ecologist magazine and started surfing the Internet reading lots of articles about the issue.
I was utterly convinced by the whole thing. The body of scientific opinion seemed to be firmly in favour of man being responsible for global warming. Without the scientific skills to evaluate complex research myself - I ultimately felt I had to accept the weight of evidence supporting this.
I understood the simple diagrams and explanations, watched an Inconvenient Truth and accepted Al Gore's assertions - although I did wonder why he had done so little about the issue when in office - when he claims to have been one of those who have been concerned about this issue for the longest.
But then you kept on being sceptical. You kept on questioning it - and therefore so did I.
And the thing started to fall to bits. Even the simplistic diagrams started to develop flaws - e.g. why is it that the suns rays are 'trapped' by the 'man-made' CO2 in the atmosphere ? - How do they penetrate the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place - surely they should be deflected away into space by the CO2 ?
And the motives became clearer..
Either the ideas were propagated by ultra-greens who dream of a non-commercialised agricultural economy.
Or the story was told by those who are fearful of the impact of the world eventually running out of coal, oil and gas and are therefore prepared to accept anything that supports the idea of man reducing his dependency on these things.
Or by people who are hitching a ride on a huge gravy train that has become global warming…
In ancient times simple people, bewildered by natural events such as famines, floods and other natural disasters created gods from those who gave them answers. In modern times, still being simple people, we do the same thing.
But fortunately some people - like you - do retain a healthy scepticism and so the rest of us keep on questioning that which is presented as inescapable fact.
The C4 - Great Global Warming Swindle is here on google video:
It presents a very compelling case. It accepts Global Warming as fact - but debunks the idea that it is induced by man as a wild theory.
Frankly I have no idea what the facts are on this one but I do know that the real argument is not about global warming - that is reasonably accepted fact. The earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 and has got hotter since.
The real argument is between those who claim that global warming is the result of man burning fossil fuels and those who point out that it is not unusual to have fluctuations in temperature and weather conditions.
But the 'global warming theorists' hijack the debate by claiming the support of the majority who 'believe' in global warming.. But the majority who do 'believe' in global warming, because no-one is disputing it, just get carried along with the assumed cause as being the actions of man….
Let the real debate continue… and keep up the good work Iain.
May I suggest calling the 'Global Warming' people 'Man-Made Global Warming' people might help re-balance the debate a little.
somebody at central office needs to be taken out and shot.
bbc news headlines on the radio at 9am this morning - in short, cameron wants to green tax us more, Gordon Brown wont and would prefer to "educate" us about greenery.
so , in short - the message is - the Tories will tax you more, and wont let you take those Easyjet weekends to Prague.
Probably the first solid policy announcement regarding taxation and they've made Gordon Brown look like the person who will tax us LESS.
as i said - taken out, and shot.
Iain, good idea to set the record straight. I admire your tenacity at staying in the party which seems to be going off its head nuts. It will be interesting to see how this latest bit of idiocy will play with the punters come the next polls.
See it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en
Iain Dale says: "I'm a Conservative, a Tory, a free marketeer and a Euro Sceptic. There can be no other Party for me than the Conservative Party. Not now. Not ever."
What about when, quite soon, there will be no UK, only regions of the superstate, with what political control there will be run by the europarties?
Camerons "policy" on Air flights is now coming apart at the seams.
Would it be possible for 18 Doughty street to follow,in Real Time, the 24 hours after a Cameron policy so that we can see the precise moment when they fall apart?
I want out of the EU, friends and trading with Europe, but out of the EU.
I want a prime Minister who is honest. I want him to be head of a party of honest politicians. I want those politicians to be able to distinguish the truth on many matters including climate change.
I want to know why they dismissed all negative arguements for climate change and think an FOI is in order to find out how many scientists thought the oposite but changed their minds for the money!
I really wish 'some' of the Conservatives would split away from Cameron and start a true right wing Conservative party, with Mercer as their leader!
I wish Farage would step down as Leader of UKIP and hand over the position to an honest, serious, committed Parliamentarian instead of a self centred comic.
I cannot vote Conservate because I do not trust Cameron!
I do not trust the spin, PR, camera oportunities AND I will never forgive him for getting rid of Mercer...
I do not like the man and cannot trust him.
The reason people get so hot under the collar, Iain, is that people like you are 'fiddling while Rome burns'.
If we wait to do something about climate change while people like you are vacillating over which reports to ignore and which scientists to diss, then it will be too bloody late to do anything, as the 'tipping point' will have been reached and Gaia will get her well-deserved revenge on us...!
Shame on you...
Crikey ! These people seem to have hit a bit of a nerve with you, Iain.
But then, if the cap fits, wear it...
“I do believe climate change is taking place, but I have an open mind on the extent to which it is (if at all) man made.”
A slight tangent – why is it acceptable to speak of “man-made climate change” but not, for instance, “man’s fight against disease” or “the ascent of man”?
IF CO2 emissions (man-made) are to be perceived as the culprit in the piece, then surely we need to look for far more simple methods of using green taxes to change the way we burn energy in the workplace and the home. Sometimes, the smaller changes can make the bigger difference!
If Al Gore was taxed in the way that I propose, then perhaps his carbon footprint might shrink to more acceptable proportions.
It's quite reasonable of you to question the evidence for climate change, Iain, but it does certainly raise doubts about your ability to draw conclusions when they contradict the evidence you presumably base them on.
Incidentally, you praised Bush's environmentally friendly cattle ranch. Do you know quite what proportion of greenhouse gases are produced by cattle? Here's a hint - most of them. If his ranch is "environmentally friendly", then the only reason is because he's only got 200 head of cattle and it serves only as a bit of entertainment and a tax break, not a functioning business.
Incidentally, I hear UKIP recently launched their climate change-denying agenda.
Iain - you are a good guy but don't ever be such a pratt as to comment on something you are clearly ill-informed on. Watch the films, then comment - engage in sensible politics.
People who saw the Channel 4 documentary last week "The Great Global Warming Swindle", can no longer say that this is a cut & dried debate on which all scientists agree. The programme nails this falsehood. In the interests of damage limitation, I hope DC has his attention drawn to this. It is a matter of deep regret that our once-great Conservative party has fallen into the trap of espousing two post-Marxist cults: Political Correctness and anthropogenic Global Warming. We have been made to look very silly.
For those of you who missed The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4 last Thursday (Mr Cameron obviously missed it). It's being repeated on E4 tonight (Monday) at 22.00 Freeview 13, Sky 142, Virgin 142.
The documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" can be obtained on DVD from Wag TV
Parents who believe their children should be given both sides of a political subject, whether it be Global Warming or any other issue, should ask their headteacher to obtain this DVD and show it in order to put the other side of the case.
The UK Education Act 1996, specifically prohibits the promotion of "partisan views on any subject" in schools. Article 407.1: says that headteachers must ensure that "where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".
I would never leave the Tory Party. The Tory Party may, on occasion, leave me, but it's then my duty to stay and argue my case.
Thats a key point Iain but in acmy case the divergence form your vviews and the current ytone of the leadreship is nothing like as dramatic as has been suggested.
I broadly share your views and it wouldn`t occurr to me to leave the Conservative Party. God knows why you would worry what Devil`s Kitchen thinks about it
After all who is he ? Just a media wannabe whose support for UKIP is probably only motivated by a desire to adopt an extreme position ,which is tricky when you are in fact a young fogey.
YOu are far kinder than I would be and you views on the enviroment are only those have been widely expressed along time ago by many others in the Party.
To tell you the truth I rather suspectedcyou of sensing the way the wind was going on Greenery
It's tragic that no political party currently represents the "silent majority" of the UK electorate.
We are offered an oligarchy of parties each clamouring for the so-called centre ground that satisfies no-one.
Iain I think your position is perectly proper. If you want to play the game you must stick to the rules & loyalty to the party is a necessary rule. No thinking person, except Margaret Beckett, agrees with all their party policies but one supports the things one can & publicly remains neutral on the rest. I disagree with you saying that you would "never" quit the Tories because if a party moves to far from its principles it should not be supported - but Cameron's present environmentalism strikes me as mere advertising (counter productive advertising if the warming scare is wrong) rather than a the party being captured by an alien principle (as I believe has happened to the Lib Dems).
Gammarama said "When you say Al Gore is a hypocrite, you must then say that Dave Cameron is one too". No this is an Iain Richardson moment. Gama & I might say that, Iain, quite properly should say no such thing, though I think party loyalty provides no obligation to disagree.
Man In a Shed I agree that the term "global warming" is so amorphous as to be meaningless (though less amorphous than "climate change") - for that reason I refer to catastrophic climate change, except when I forget - if it isn't catastrophic & I believe it isn't then $400 miliion a day for Kyoto isn't justified.
Finally I would like to make a point for PR. Ian has demonstrated both the strength & weakness of "big tent" parties. I suspect he would be more comfortable with 2 Tory parties, a Moderatist party & a Free Trade one. I also think it would be more honest, give the electorate a better democratic choice & ultimately better government if we had a multi-party system. That would require changing the rules of the game by introducing PR.
"I would never leave the Tory Party. The Tory Party may, on occasion, leave me, but it's then my duty to stay and argue my case."
This obsession with the conservative party is just misplaced brand loyalty, bordering on the kind of pseudo-religion that Iain was originally attacking climate change fanatics for.
If a political party has left you so comprehensively, surely it is time to say goodbye to it.
anonymous 10:22 says: If we wait to do something about climate change while people like you are vacillating over which reports to ignore and which scientists to diss, then it will be too bloody late to do anything, as the 'tipping point' will have been reached
Well then, let's do something about it right now! Let's put out the sun! That'll end sun flares, sun spots and all the other activity on the surface of the sun that has caused the earth's climate to fluctuated for millions of years! Let's do it today!
If the largest contributors to CO2 emmissions are cattle and trees, surley the way to reverse global warming is to cut down the rainforests at a faster rate and shoot one or two more cows?! Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
You say you want to get elected on your own terms, but you are quite happy to bask in the reflected glory of Cameron's populism when it suits...
The fact that your standing only highlights the way you have used this blog to elevate your own personal status...So much for blogs being a seperate fora to challenge the mainstream medias, to provide another avenue for debate. It seems it just became your online CV
Entwining consideration of the rhetoric of global warming with the nature of coalition and electoral systems makes thinking straight hard.
Political systems modify continuously and their current forms are more, and less, masked by voting systems.
Where there is PR it is possible (under some sorts of PR) to vote first for a party and then for a candidate, within that party coalition, who is specifically representative of a policy close to a voter's concerns.
A prime minister leads a group of parties but, more importantly, represents a group of policies that voters want implemented. So in Italy Prodi leads a coalition of parties that stands for a whole policy bundle which the entire grouping will further; not a party leader but a political goals facilitator ; a leader without a party. Arguably this is the case emerging in France where Bayrou, standing for a widely acceptable set of policies, is running strongly against party-tied leaders (even where there are coalitions within the party groupings of right and left). Merkel draws political strength (and formal support from outside of her own party coalition) for widely desired policies.
The first -past- the -post -produced confrontational party system in the UK has both masked and slowed this development here, but by no means stayed it.
Blair is not the first prime minister to call upon policy rather than party support to win his way. There have been national governments before doing this, (though chiefly in war time). Blair has used policy-power derived from Opposition votes to drive through crucial policy in areas such as education and defence during the last 10 years. Cameron has stated he will support policies that conform to Conservative views. Blair is about to do it again on Trident renewal.
Comparing political practice with the past is no more valid than looking at political present day practice in other European countries; the past is just as much another country, particularly when the current europeanisation of UK politics is taken into account.
There is a majority centre ground in European politics that does not conform to either ceding prime ministerial political power to party leaders or to ceding political power to majority parties.
Voters want policies the majority support implemented; they are not supporting football teams.
Blair and Cameron know this, and we intuitively know they know this. Gordon Brown, with his Labour party power base built at such cost to the potential wealth that might have been widely enjoyed in the UK over the last ten years, does not.
His years at the Exchequer have been a disservice and disadvantage to us all; his accession to power on the basis of his control of the Labour party would be a betrayal of the electorate and a constitutional anachronism .
I love you Iain !
Iain well said. I hope all traditional conservatives can be brought round to this way of thinking. We are a broad church and need to remain so. UKIP has always been at its heart a single issue party and will never be capable of government
I cannot believe that after umpteen posts decrying Al Gore and his film you haven't even bloody watched it!
Iain I've had a bash at crafting what I think would be a more genuinely Tory approach to the environment, rather than (what seems to me to me) to be Mr Cameron's attempts to buy into the solutions of the Left.
I'd be happy for your comments on my thoughts if you have time:
Post a Comment