Get out of the way - by Richard... Sunday, December 05, 2010

Get out of the way - by Richard... Sunday, December 05, 2010

Peter Hitchens observes that "the eternal coalition" would be perfect for politicians and lousy for the rest of us. He seems to be one of the few commentators who have not lost their way, especially with Peter Oborne having gone native, writing the most unbelievable tosh.

That man is now almost on a par with Matthew d'Ancona, whose low order garbage has long since ceased to be readable. Their outpouring are simply bubble-speak, the same disease that has overtaken ToryBoyDiary (which has gone from good to garbage in a series of short, but easy steps) and the Speccitwats.

Hitchens, though, also points to the outcome of a continued Cleggeron pact, which would then have the third party actually agreeing with it on almost everything. What a perfect outcome for the political class, he writes: two liberal parties in permanent power, pro-EU, pro-crime, anti-education, anti-marriage, warmist. And an Opposition that doesn't oppose.

To avoid this - as we suggested earlier - not only should the Not-The-Tory-Party and the Lib-Dims combine permanently, they should go further and take in Labour to form a single party. That is what is really needed, regularising a situation where the political classes have aligned with themselves against the people.

Once the bed-blockers have been cleared out of the way, space would be created for a genuine opposition party which, we suspect, would not remain in opposition very long.

Either way, we need to build a coherent opposition in the country. A situation where we are offered a choice between the Cleggerons and Ed Miliband's Labour is more than intolerable. It is a very sick joke. However, looking to the American Tea Party model is not going to work – certainly the name is not appropriate for the British.

On the other hand, a loose network of like-minded people could work – the Million Angry People concept. This would be a group prepared to support independent candidates and push past the current electoral stitch-up. The choice belongs to us. We either roll over and let them take over, or we can roll them over and take back what is ours.

It is time, methinks, for the latter. We need to be able to say: get out of the way - we're coming through.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

It's the politics stoopid - by Richard...

I meant to put this link up from Dellers. He is taking exactly the right line, mocking the warmists unmercifully (seen above, at prayer). You cannot deal seriously with people who believe that all and any natural phenomena they observe are "climate impacts" and will attempt to argue that the current freezing weather is caused by global warming.

Even the old pornographer can see the writing on the wall. From Can'tcun, the Pachauri is saying: "... it's just a matter of time before the public realises what we're in for ... ". He's dead right. Perhaps he had been told what was going on in Malta, where they are not too keen on rival religions and have told Greenie demonstrators to get stuffed.

Soon enough, the whole shambolic belief system will collapse. Such systems always do. We are confronted with the scare dynamic, here. And scares, as a social phenomenon, have structures and obey rules. This one, the global warming scare, is running true to form.

The next problem we have – which has never been addressed properly in any scare – is how to deal with the regulatory overkill. That is always the final phase of a a scare, where the regulators move in to create a vast matrix of laws and controls to address the supposed problems identified.

It is invariably this phase which does the most damage – the regulatory costs, the restraints and distortions to economic activity, and the constraints on personal liberty. They linger on well past the initial phase of the scare and, so far, society has not found an easy means of dealing with them.

Here, the really interesting issue is how scares so easily become exploited by regulators to pursue their specific interests – in what we came to call the doctrine of the "beneficial crisis" - and how slow people are to recognise the dynamic. This, with huge amusement we see in a WUWT post, where there is this observation:

What really strikes us is the fact that all this Copenhagen/Cancun stuff has nothing to do with the Climate, or saving the World. It's about political positioning, money, and plain old fascism cult promotion.

Well, you don't say! And if this is not a recognition of "Ursine subarboreal toilet activity" of the type identified by Dellers, I don't know what is.

The odd thing though is that so many of the clever little politics wonks you meet don't understand the scare dynamic either. They either ignore the scares or take the so-called scientific agenda at face value. They rarely appreciate that the "scare" or "beneficial crisis" is a means of institutional queue-jumping, a means of by-passing institutional inertia and democratic processes.

As always, look at a scare and you will find that science is only the dressing. At the heart, you will find it's the politics stoopid. It always is.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The Climate Reich - by Richard...

What we are seeing here is one of the greatest collective flights from reality in the history of the human race. As western Europe shivers to a halt and our energy bills soar through the roof, the time has come when we should all start to get seriously angry with our politicians for being carried away by all this claptrap.

So writes Booker who asks why, when our public debt is still rising by £3 billion a week, do we allow our Government to ring-fence £2.9 billion of our money to help the developing world to build useless wind turbines and solar panels? He also asks why we tolerate a Parliament which blithely commits us to spending £18.3 billion every year for 40 years under the Climate Change Act, without having the faintest idea how we are going to keep our lights on?

The answer is because they are no longer afraid of us, and have stopped listening. We do need to get seriously angry. But that is not enough. We need a Million Angry People out on the streets.

COMMENT THREAD