Showing posts with label Thatcher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thatcher. Show all posts

Thursday, 3 February 2022

1989 Thatcher on climate


Replying to

Yet his predecessor in the 1980s was already convinced by the science. Maybe because she actually understood it. The idea the evidence has only become compelling enough recently is risible. 


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKnTeCDWUAIDUvt?format=jpg&name=medium

Saturday, 22 January 2022

The only zero we are headed for is ...

The only zero we are headed for is zero gas and oil as we greedily burn them all up, without a thought for tomorrow.  And, as Mrs Thatcher said in 1988 in a speech to the Royal Society:

She believed it possible that "We have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of the earth itself."

By 'system', she meant life support systems, the planet's natural ecosystems.

"Either we get our numbers (population) and our activities into harmony with the powers of the earth to support life or, collapsing ecosystems will do the job for us."  (UK Green Party Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, 1970s)

The three main parties all want and work for an unsustainable society.  Hence, Attenborough's  "collapse of civilisations", "extinction of much of the natural world" and, "time is running out" warnings, at COP 24 in Dec 2018.

We are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.  Snookered.

Monday, 13 July 2020

Rowan Moore on Brexit, climate, Cummings, Johnson and 40 years of Tory power

 

CHARLES MOORE:

As for Trump, no, I don’t believe he is a conservative. His essential message is “Trump first”. The only thing I like about him is his refusal to be cowed by the self-righteousness of his opponents.

On climate change, I resist what I see as a political viewpoint masquerading as “the science”. The aim of the large numbers of alarmists is unprecedented government control and the relative impoverishment of western societies.  (SELF: Charles' impoverishment will come once all the very finite fossil fuels are in short supply and becoming too expensive to pump out of the ground.)  

CHARLES:

Cheap energy is one of the greatest emancipations produced by our civilisation. (SELF: a pretty short-sighted, foolish, grab what you can while the going is good, sort of society.  In fact, a one-off geological inheritance we are blowing in 300 years.  And, in the process, with the downside of turning earth into uninhabitable venus with its runaway greenhouse effect!)

ROWAN MOORE:
Yes, I do take the Leave vote seriously. But it was a narrow vote after a flawed campaign (SELF: "sharp practice" - Cameron on prorogation; Cameron should have initially announced the best of three if no one side got 55% or, advisory for MPs to make the final decision) that has been taken as a licence for whatever Brexiter politicians want it to mean. The missed opportunity was to unite the country around a way of leaving the EU that most people would be happy with. I believe Boris Johnson argued for such a thing at the time.
Re climate: if conservatives like yourself don’t want the issue used against you, perhaps you should try harder to show how capitalism can be reconciled with protecting the environment. Thirty years after Mrs Thatcher raised the issue the noises from the right seem to be saying “it’s not really happening” or “it’s not that bad” or “we’ll muddle through”.
What I find really striking is how strongly you feel that the world is against you and likeminded people, and unfairly so. What I see is 40 years in which the Conservatives have mostly been in power (without ever winning a majority of the vote, thanks to our electoral system), in which Thatcherism has been hugely influential, and in which the Daily Telegraph has, with an amazing blurring of editorial and news, helped to put your fellow columnist into Downing Street.
Of course, if you think you are wrongly oppressed anything is allowable – Cummings’s rulebreaking, Johnson’s lies and betrayals – but I would ask you, too, to check your privilege.
However, you have given me a clearer idea of how liberal assumptions can sound from the outside. I intend to watch myself when I fall into the lazy habits that can go with my worldview. I hope you – or anyone else who feels like it – will point them out to me.

Tuesday, 6 August 2019

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Measure twice, cut once. Very provocative to distance NI from ROI. 3 years with the wind behind you but ...

No deal withdrawal from the EU means we do a Trump and break an international peace agreement

Withdrawal is a throwback to the 1940s and the heyday of our mighty British Empire that had just been so victorious, yet again, in 1945.  As Prime Minister Attlee observed, in explaining his feelings about Western Europe coming together: "The so called Common Market of six nations.  Know them all well.  Very recently this country spent a great deal of blood and treasure rescuing four or 'em from attacks by the other two."  Germany and Italy attacking France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands.  It revealed Attlee's incomprehension that perhaps the six were coming together to create a new future of friendship, co-operation and economic progress to such an extent, that war would never again be possible.  We were invited to take part but Andrew Marr in his 'A History of Modern Britain' tells of one minister, Herbert Morrison who had to make a quick decision over whether to attend a meeting on future European collaboration.  "He thought for a moment and shook his head.  'It's no good.  We can't do it.  The Durham miners won't wear it.'  For many Tories, watching from the sidelines, this was a disastrous mistake."  Marr p 129 and on p 26:
"Herbert Morrison, for his part, declared that the new socialist government of Britain was, 'friends of the jolly old Empire; we are going to stick to it'."

In recent decades, it was always a small number of Conservative MPs (about 80, I've heard) who, for ideological, doctrinaire and sovereignty reasons, were convinced that UK in the EU was fundamentally wrong.  Rather like some who are similarly convinced that every word in the Bible is literally true and inspired by God.  The fundamentalists.  The MPs in the ERG are convinced that sharing sovereignty with other countries is immoral, foolish and deeply wrong.  Yet, countries of the UK share their sovereignty with the UK Houses of Parliament.  Regions in those four countries share sovereignty with their national Parliament or Assembly.  District and borough councils share sovereignty with their Parliament or Assembly or Metro Mayor.

The EU is about nations coming together and working in co-operation with one another where that is sensible and practical, to benefit all.  But, for my wife the EU is wrong for Christian reasons.  She cites the story of the Tower of Babel where the people reached up to heaven to make a name for themselves.  They thought they knew better than God.  He was being challenged by their presumption.  He put a stop to this co-operative effort, the peoples were scattered and had their own languages.  The tower was never finished.

I remember, when at teacher training college from 1968 to 1971, there was one evangelical Christian who was strongly against the UK entering the EEC.  If I remember correctly, it was something to do with the number of countries in the EEC if Britain was to join and a quote from the book of Revelation in the Bible.  I remember his name more clearly - Fouzi Ayoub.

Many people, like me, made decisions on what to do about the 2016 referendum for the most weird and wonderful reasons.  One friend told me that he really had no idea how to vote for the best.   For many people, it was shear pot luck how they decided!  Three years on and we are all much better informed.

I abstained in the withdrawal referendum in 2016 because of the inability to get to see my MEPs or to even get a sensible response from them over the destruction of our railway network for buildings and trams.  Clearly, the EU was as keen on trams taking priority over reinstating the trains as our own politicians and transport planners.  Hence, I voted but put an 'X' next to where I had written in 'Abstain'.  Come to think of it, I may not have turned up at all to abstain.

Since the referendum, some are more aware and better informed over the implications of Brexit.  I realise that withdrawal is very disruptive throughout Europe and is endangering the Good Friday peace agreement.  Anything that distances N Ireland from the ROI is a red rag to a bull to those militant Republican dissidents who are already not hesitating to return to violence - more in 2019 than any previous year this century.

The move to devolution for Scotland and Wales was done slowly over a number of years.  With the even more important decision over our future in the EU, it was rushed with only one referendum and, even then, only a simple majority of 50% plus 1 required for such a monumental matter to be decided!

Probably, Jo Cox would still be alive today if Cameron had not called the referendum.  It was a massive mistake by him.  He could have decided on a 60% majority being needed for withdrawal.  Or, he could have said it was advisory only.  Or, that the final decision was up to a free vote for the MPs as to what we should do.

The debate over our future in Europe did not begin until after the June 2016 referendum.  Very few were fully informed before we all had to make a decision.  Many of us did not know whether it was best to go 'Yes' or 'No'.  Mine was a protest abstention believing, as one reason, that it should never have been called. What Ian Hislop said that Margaret Thatcher advised was right.  Apparently, she said it was too complicated an issue to put to the people in a referendum.  So don't do it.

Above all, billions are spent on getting out of Europe that means yet more greenhouse gases, fewer finite resources, more strain on the planet's life support systems and, at the very time when closeness and collaboration is essential to deal with extinction episode no 6 that we are in the midst of.

Three years have gone by, with the Prime Minister, her ministers and Whitehall trying to get a deal acceptable to a simple majority of MPs of remainers and leavers.  There have been three years and three big defeats for the 52% who wanted out.  That should be enough to make it obvious that a Brexit deal of any kind - hard, soft or anything in between is unachievable.  The final desperate throw of the dice for a disorderly crashing out is totally irresponsible and was never voted on anyway.

After 3 years of trying and being very trying, a 'true' or 'fundamentalist' or 'literal' Brexit is undeliverable.  Revoke Article 50.

SUMMARY
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Measure twice, cut once.  In 2016, many did not have a clue how to vote or not vote.
The whole thing was rushed with only one vote to decide such a monumental matter.
Very provocative for the violent thugs and criminals in distancing NI from ROI.
3 years with the wind behind you but still nothing achieved because the leavers want a range of different things from leaving.
The herd instinct now demands a thoughtless, impatient, desperate 'Get out at all costs' Brexit.  'Stop the world I want to get off', meaningless mentality!
The rather better informed MPs should be allowed to trump the people on something as life changing as EU membership.

Friday, 7 June 2019

DO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING?

DO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING?

The gradual process for UK devolution to its smaller countries was not followed for leaving the EU or, in converting a mainline railway into a tram line, a test track, a trail of trees and an extended cycle-walkway.

The 1990's and 00's careful, sensible and gradual process that led to eventual devolution was not followed for a matter of even greater import - our future membership of the EU.  For something more complicated than devolution, all the checks and balances built in to get, eventually an assembly and one parliament was not followed over the matter of the UK leaving EU membership.

On 5 April 2019, 'Have I Got News for You', Ian Hislop commented, "Thatcher said we shouldn't have a referendum on Europe.  It was too complicated an issue to put to the public. She was right."

Similarly, for something so game changing, expensive and, therefore, climate breaking as the decision to convert a safeguarded, 120 Kms mainline railway into two very short sections of tramway, on that matter too, none of the checks and balances were followed.  There was not even any kind of debate or even discussion beforehand, let alone a vote. Not even one of the constituent councils of the WMCA had a debate and vote.  The elected members were content to have the decision imposed upon them by the UK pressure group for trams that has infiltrated Transport HQ.  This, to spend nearly half a billion to destroy the middle section of a mainline railway that reduces capacity.  Yet, £56 billion is spent to increase capacity on our railways with HS2!
Brexit makes us look odd.  Out of step when being in step and collaborating is vital.  It discourages inward investment from overseas. It puts other countries off.

"An analysis of foreign direct investment (FDI) projects by the Department for International Trade for  2018-19, shows the UK attracted 1,782, compared to 2,072 in the previous 12 month period, representing a decline of 14% ."  from businesslive@email.trinitymirror-news.co.uk   27 June 2019 

Never mind!  That will make £92 billions of benefits for the UK, says the business case!!  Are we living in Alice in Wonderland? Or, do we know what we are doing? This must be dishonest, crooked economics when all the crucial, fossil fuel resources are finite and, when burnt, screw up the planet's climates in changing the composition of the atmosphere for the worse?

Tuesday, 19 February 2019

IAN AUSTIN'S ARTICLE ON CHURCHILL

Dear Ian - copied to Express and Star reporters who published your piece and to your assistant Cllr Keiran and to former Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo for comments/correction, please.

You are as enthusiastic for dear Winston as Andrew Roberts.  We all have our prejudices! But do take a look at Andrew Marr's book, 'A History of Modern Britain'.  My own thoughts on Britain's Greatest Briton are these that gives a different perspective and are influenced by Marr and the 99 year old interviewed on the 'Today' programme earlier this month.  I think we are all a mixture of good and evil and of hero and villain. We are all frail and flimsy. Please hear both sides of the argument.
  1. Churchill loved action, militarism, imperialism, nationalism and the thrill of warfare.  He loved nothing better than a good scrap.
  2. He would have loved the British empire to have lasted "for a thousand years" to rival Hitler's Third Reich.  But both were no more after the one World War in two halves. Winston's greater love for war did it for Empire - both Germany and ours.
  3. He was a leading protagonist for war in the Cabinet discussions up to 4 August 1914 declaration of war, from what I have read.
  4. Yet, this was a war that was nearly lost, by our side, in the first few weeks.
  5. This was war, more than once, that could have gone either way.  Only the USA intervention in 1917 turned it in our favour.
  6. There was a 'peace' treaty that seems to have failed to recognise the above facts. It was hardly a treaty that was magnanimous in victory - a wonderful phrase attributed to dear Winston.  Akin to "justice tempered with mercy."
  7. Even IDS, the former Conservative leader, has spoken of how that disastrous war led to its sequel in 1939.
  8. According to Marr, on the 28 May 1940 at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation, if it had been only Conservative politicians present who wanted to cut a deal with Hitler, Churchill would have been outvoted.  The Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax had found "Hitler most sincere and Goering frankly attractive." However, Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood, the two Labour men in the Government of National Unity, "were solid for fighting on and so, by a squeak, Churchill had his majority." (Marr)
  9. Marr has most of the Establishment and many Conservatives, looking on Churchill as "a rather ridiculous, drunken, dodgy man with a penchant for wild speeches and silly hats.  Behind their gloved hands, they called him the rogue elephant, even the gangster." In Labour circles, he was seen as an enemy of the working class, a pink faced toff who called in the army against strikers.  Tonypandy, first time?
  10. When he won his majority for war on the 28 May 1940, Churchill told the full War Cabinet, that they were all to fight on to the death.  There would be no parley or surrender. "Let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."
  11. Therefore, twice, Churchill wanted all out total war to the death.  The first half imperial war led to the second half in 1939. Surprisingly, two Labour MPs gave him his majority for our nation to fight on after Dunkirk.  One was the Labour leader, Attlee and the other was Arthur Greenwood.  The Conservatives, Halifax and Chamberlain wanted to parley and surrender.  It was the Labour Party that won the war (and lost the peace) and not the Conservatives!!
  12. Much later, Attlee led us into the Korean War that had disastrous consequences for that peninsular to this day.
  13. It was Attlee who gave us our own deadly WMD with their amassment and renewal by every government, including Labour, ever since.  So much for Labour politicians being wimps for glorious, heroic war! Only in 2015, did the latest new Labour Party leader pronounce that, for him, "war must be the last resort".  And the man still hangs on to this day. Extraordinary!
  14. For Churchill and the War Cabinet, when victory was certain for our side in February 1945, it ended for 24,000 Dresden residents not in blood but in fire, flame and burning flesh.  Listen on BBC Sounds. My e-mail to Ian on 14 Feb, here: "Did you hear that 99 year old hero soldier, Victor Gregg, from the 2nd World War who was interviewed on Monday 11 Feb on the 'Today' programme?  He survived the war solely because Churchill and Harris ordered the fire bombing of Dresden in February 1945. His book is called 'Dresden: A Survivor's Story'. His interview starts at 0742:50 hrs."
  15. Churchill might easily have lost the war in 1940/1 but the USA came to our rescue in 1941.
  16. Radar was an important factor in us winning the Battle of Britain, together with the young pilots and not Winston's magnificent, morale boosting oratory.
  17. As Margaret Thatcher was so lucky with her enemies (Galtieri and Scargill), Winston was lucky with his friends in North America and the Empire that won it for him.  Give credit where credit is due.
  18. Was it Churchill who thought up the idea of convoys to protect our merchant shipping?  That was a real brainwave.
  19. There was Hitler's massive mistakes, of course that helped the Brits and Americans and, the Empire to win.
  20. The Soviet Union and Stalin diverted the Nazi war effort onto the Eastern Front.  Did Churchill ever formally thank the USSR for their invaluable help and sacrifice?
  21. 20 to 30 million Russians died defending our shores from Hitler.
  22. Have you ever bowed your head in silent remembrance of the death and sacrifice of those millions of evil Commies, Ian?
  23. Correlli Barnett wrote something like, "In 1945, we were psychologically victorious but, materially defeated and economically bankrupt."

​Anyone is welcome to correct my history or to expand on these notes, here - please.