Wednesday 28 April 2021

What say do the people have on Climate Change policy?

 I recently read an article in the Spectator about COP26, which is scheduled to be held in Glasgow in early November and according to the article, the once climate sceptic, Boris Johnson is now an enthusiastic supporter of this gathering no doubt encouraged by his 'Green' fiancée Carrie Symonds and also his father who has brought into the current ‘Green’ agenda.

 COP 26 stands for Conference of the Parties, and will be attended by countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - a treaty agreed in 1994. The 2021 meeting will be the 26th meeting hence COP26.

Climate Change was once called Global Warming, until our planet didn’t warm as predicted despite an increase in CO2. This is a topic I feel I know something about having read 17 books on the subject. The link with THA is that for a major policy issue, there is no bigger in terms of costs, the decisions are being made by previous and the recent government, pressured by the well organised and financed Green Movement, while completely ignoring the views of the public. This, as with many issues, increasing shows the gap between politicians and the people.

The Green priority and current fad involve a push for 'Net Zero' in carbon emissions which our government has committed us to achieve by 2045 with an estimated cost of £3 trillion. Three trillion is a huge number so what exactly does it look like?

The now universal definition of million is one thousand thousand. A billion is one thousand million and a trillion is a thousand billion.

Another way to look at this figure of three trillion is to consider how long in time three trillion seconds is. So, for example: -

 A million seconds = 11 days

A billion seconds = 32 years

A trillion seconds = 32,000 years so three trillion = 96,000 years

A final measure or comparison is to consider the government’s budget expenditure for 2020 which was around 928 billion so nearly £1 trillion.

By any measure you care to consider £3 trillion is a huge figure and I believe unsustainable but supported and bandied about by most of the out of touch, incompetent, impressionable, ignorant, supine and self-seeking politicians.

Now it is very important to realise, for those who may not be aware, that with regards media coverage of CC the BBC held a secret meeting in 2006 which decided that the debate was settled and beyond dispute and they issued an instruction to all employees that they should only report CC in the context of being 'man-made'. You only have to observe all the media's output on CC to realise they nearly all follow the same line.

Interestingly despite the media's pro man-made CC stance the public's opinion on the matter, despite at least 20 years of pro media coverage, is far from unanimous as this survey illustrates albeit the question asked is very simplistic.

The two points I would make are first that while 35% are very concerned that makes 65%, a clear majority, only fairly or not very concerned and second imagine how many more would not be concerned if the media coverage was more balanced and allowed a fair share of the coverage to come from Climate Realists. Interestingly CC advocates call sceptics ‘Deniers’ to tar them with the same brush as ‘Holocaust Deniers’ a tactic that currently works quite well for them.

The big issue is where in this debate is the public’s view considered and the answer is that it isn’t and the government forges ahead on the out pouring’s of CC alarmists although it should be note that not one previous doomsday prediction about our climate, form those associated with the CC industry has ever come true as seen here -

Finally our fourth demand would allow the people, if enough of them wished it, to have their say in an advisory referendum with the official campaign having to allow equal time for both sides of the debate and that I believe is far more democratic than the current situation where an increasing discredited PM can, under the influence of his fiancée, commit our country to spend £3 trillion to achieve ‘Net Zero’ which I and an increasing contingent in the scientific community believe to be almost entirely unnecessary.    

Wednesday 21 April 2021

Understanding history is the ultimate passport to the future.

Studying history gives us the opportunity to learn from others' past mistakes. It helps us understand the many reasons why people may behave the way they do. As a result, it should help decision-makers become more impartial. The only trouble is that history seems to prove, time and time again, that we don’t learn from history!

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Sir John Glubb’s research that showed how in the past all nations go through six stages ending with a decline into ‘Decadence’. Having written his essay ‘The Fate of Empires’ he was inundated with letters which prompted him to write a follow up essay ‘Search for Survival’ in which he analysed the reasons for our decline in more detail and proposed a remedy.

I had not read his second essay for a few years now, so whether subconsciously or not, I had also come to the same conclusions as to how we could at worse soften our decline and at best start a revival in our fortunes.

This is what his summary said:-

“The object of my first essay was not to moan that ‘the end is nigh’, rather the reverse. Our decline is due not to external forces over which we have no control, but to our own greed, selfishness and immortality, and to our loss of courage and energy, ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings.’ These failings which each one of us can help to rectify.

Our duty is therefore, to inaugurate movements for the reversal of these trends; scrupulously to carry out our duties to our families; to work as hard as we possibly can, and to carry our subordinates with us, through comradeship and personal relation; to seize every opportunity to speak and to write in favour of self-sacrifice, service and unselfishness. It is above all, the revival of our spirit which will transform our situation and guarantee our future.

Our country is obsessed by the grudging spirit of ‘why should I?’ We need leaders to inspire us once again with the spirit of selfless service. But if our leaders are incapable of setting us such an example, we must do it ourselves.

We need the spirit of the prophet who, when he heard that hard service was needed, cried joyfully, “Here am I! Send me!”

So, if our leaders won’t lead the way then we must do it ourselves and for me that means a peaceful mass movement providing relentless pressure on our politicians demanding they up their game and listen and react to their concerns. The BIG question is when will the people wake up to reality and then, importantly do something about it? It is because I believe reform to our system of governance, with the key recognition of the people’s inherent sovereignty, is a vital part of our renewal that I promote our agenda.

Finally, I would like to address those, who from the comfort of their mod con homes and life styles, believe that this age of ‘Decadence’ is grossly overstated and the ‘Liberal’ age in which we live has brought nothing but benefits. I would like to recommend that you read ‘Liberal Delusion – The roots of our current moral crisis’ by John Marsh and you might view things differently.

In conclusion it is certainly true that in the 10 years I have been promoting THA it has been a hard sell, which is because most people are still too comfortable, but as things get worse the people will demand change. When change comes it will not be one single ‘Big Bang’ improvement that will address our decline but hundreds of little changes that will set us on the course for our revival.





Tuesday 13 April 2021

Why only the people can achieve radical political change.

 In 2006 the, 300-page, report ‘POWER to the People’ was published. This was an Independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy being a centenary project of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.  

The report was chaired by Helena Kennedy QC and supported by a dozen 'Power Commissioners' and received submissions, in various formats, from around 1000 individuals and organisations as well as contributions from around 170 ‘experts’ which included 30 local and national politicians.

The Foreword opened with these two sentences "This is not a report simply about constitutional change. It is a report about giving people real influence over the bread-and-butter issues which affect their lives." There is nothing in the following four pages with which I would disagree as it outlined the need for democratic reform and the transfer of power from the centre to local communities.

However, the sheer fact I doubt many of you have any recollection of this report let alone any of the 30 recommendations, yes 30, to improve our democracy rather speaks for itself. I also note that its own website has been taken down, there now only being a Wiki entry and a copy of the report on the Joseph Rowntree website to prove it ever existed.

Looking at the recommendations there are a dozen, I’d support, which tie in directly with our six demands in areas like a Written Constitution, a Separation of Power and the People’s Consent. However, the majority would not improve our governance or our democracy at all which the Forward so clearly stated was their aim, examples include: -

  • ·         Limits should be placed on the power of the whips – Good luck with that!
  • ·         Voting age should be reduced to 16 – That should do it!
  • ·         State funding for parties – Open to corruption.
  • ·         Consideration of text and e-mail voting - ditto
  • ·         Reform of media ownership – an old unsolvable chestnut.
  • ·         A new independent Nat. Statistical Service to provide info to the public – open to bias.

In conclusion this type of inquiry, sums up the futility of such reports, produced by the supposed ‘Great and the Good’ because if the status quo is challenged the ‘Establishment’ will quietly ignore it and eventually bury it.

If the people want to reform our system governance and regain their inherent sovereignty they are going to have to wake up and demand the necessary changes or else accept the inevitable continuation of our national decline under our current incompetent, corrupt and self-serving politicians.