Category: Uncategorized

The UK’s Harmful and Dishonest Approach to Climate Policy

Rishi Sunak in front of Number10

Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng intuitively knew that the UK needs growth to release the shackles of destructive inflation and to help achieve the growth they needed to free the UK energy producers.

Unfortunately, the thinking was not supported by a deliverable plan. As a result of not preparing the ground better, or even at all, the bureaucratic apparatus was aligned against them. That’s not to say there would not have been headwinds, there would have. The EU and US are against any upity nation lowering taxes to attract new global business and increase the competitiveness of existing companies.

It wasn’t surprising that the IMF and EU came out against Kwarteng’s tax cuts. Their claims of concern for the UK’s economy were disingenuous at best. The Bank of England stepped to the side and allowed Truss to hit a financial brick wall by staying out of the guilt market. They could have stepped in as they did after they had destroyed the new PM. Instead, they choose to act once the knife had been deposited in the UK government’s back.

The new British PM Rishi Sunak just reversed his predecessor’s reinstatement of fracking for drilling and producing natural gas. Although much maligned, fracking has been the most effective tool for reducing carbon emissions. It has allowed the United States to exceed their promised decrease in emissions in record time and has ensured they continue to decline, a true ‘climate’ win.

The new government has returned to a slow or no growth strategy embracing the disastrous march towards a rigged net zero. Not only is our economy struggling to climb out of a deepening recession; it is having to do so with the milestone of extremist climate legislation tied around its waist.

In the ’20s and ’30s, the US government tried to end a depression by spending tens of billions of US dollars. It had little or no effect. Only the second world war broke the depression spiral when the government was forced to rely on the private sector for war material. The exponential growth in privately held businesses broke the multi-decade impasse that government spending only exacerbated and prolonged.

Japan is still suffering stagflation three decades after the collapse of its economy. The geographically small densely populated island state does not have the natural resources or ability to grow economically and may never emerge from the ravages of low growth and high inflation.

So why do we need to follow the same path as those who have no choice but to bend a knee to oil-producing nations, and what will we gain? care that we are on the path to being a carbon-neutral country in 2050?

The UK on the other hand does have proven energy reserves. Instead of seeing them as an asset which they are, we have decided to follow the lead of other nations, who have no choice and we have downed tools subjecting millions of Britains to fuel poverty. Driving a stake through the heart of a national asset.

Transferring our energy needs to despots and dictators is not a sound policy. Needless killing citizens on the alter of climate activism, is murder. The millions who freeze to death this winter across Europe and the US need to be set alongside the supposed numbers of potential deaths over decades claimed by climate zealots.

The government will bankrupt the country trying to achieve the unachievable net zero. Quietly offshore our carbon footprint while claiming it has disappeared bringing a new and sinister meaning to the phrase NIMBY (not in my backyard).

Do the countries now posturing to be the new Imperialist, China, Russia, India and the Middle East care about climate change? Or will they see the west’s mindless pursuit of it as a strategic opportunity? It would be wise to remember that Reagan ended the Cold War by bankrupting the USSR. He could do that because the US had a massive economy with access to cheap energy.

This time, the shoe is on the other foot. Russia can make Europe go dark. A smart weapon, unlike the nuclear option Putin sometimes refers to. You don’t destroy the infrastructure, just kill a few million people.

The war in Ukraine is mostly about controlling energy, from the massive Ukrainian gas field to the leverage Putin has over Western Europe due to Germany relinquishing national security for marginal climate accolades. It has brought Europe close to a full-scale conflict that will immediately erase people and any massively expensive ‘climate gains’ along with them. You only have to look at the pictures coming from the Ukraine battlefield to tell war is not ‘green’.

As the reality of the disastrous green party policies comes home to roost in Germany, they are quietly bringing nuclear back online, clear-cutting forests for firewood, and recommissioning coal-fired power generation. Unlike the UK government, Germany has reversed their suicidal climate trajectory.

Oceans will rise over hundreds of years if they rise at all. The world’s temperature will rise slowly over hundreds of years, and even now scientists can’t agree on how much or even if it will rise or fall. Humans can adapt as we have throughout our existence. On the other hand, nuclear war happens in a matter of seconds, is provably terminal and would take minutes to turn the world uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. Eclipsing even the direst climate predictions.

We continue to ignore the real dangers and try and solve those which are undefined and can be solved over a long period if they are real. Even if not addressed they will not destroy the world’s entire population. Modern warfare will.

The government needs to stop pointing at ill-defined multi-decade problems and address the real existential threats, world war, freezing, starving populations, and quality of life. We have for too long chased the shiny object, enriched the climate snake oil salesman and thrown our safety and security under the bus. The west can’t solve the climate issues if it is bankrupt. Climate change will be the least of our worries if there is a change in a world order controlled by China and Russia.

While the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse Circle, Labour Outlines Their Faustian Bargain

Labour Doubles Down on an Unachievable Climate Promise

At their annual conference last week, Labour promised to cleanse the UK of fossil fuels by 2030. First of all, it’s a lie. The UK would continue to use fossil fuels at the same rate, if not greater than we do today. This path would only shift our reliance on those fuels further towards environmentally disastrous nations controlled by despots.

If that’s not bad enough, we will dive further down the hole of fuel poverty for our most vulnerable citizens. The UK cannot afford to underpin an unachievable pipe dream of fossil-free living against an unproven backdrop of global catastrophic failure sometime in the future, if ever. 

Labour has forsaken the working class to worship at the altar of a false god, climate alarmism. They ask the people they claim to care about to choose between warmth and food. It will only get worse, and yet the Ukrainian War and fuel crisis which the moronic adherence to climate fanaticism has caused is portrayed as a necessity. The morally bankrupt love to lecture about unproven deaths which might be caused by climate change while completely ignoring the real prospect of death caused this winter by unaffordable or unavailable energy.

Stammer should have explained the Faustian bargain he and his fellow Labour acolytes have entered: die today so future generations might not die tomorrow. It’s easy to draw parallels with other historical movements that have sold stability on the back of chaos. The war in Ukraine has a far more significant impact on climate, not to mention human suffering and death. The possibility of that conflict spilling over into Europe and beyond is real. Would the Western European states continue to pursue the lie of dispensing with fossil fuels? Fortunately, the answer is no. Quietly the fossil fuel lie is being disassembled by the Germans, French and many other European countries. Governments are cancelling the closing of nuclear power plants, burning coal and other fossil-based fuels to keep the power on. The lie is imploding. Stammer might want to take note. 

History is Replete With Decisions Made Based on Blind Adherenece

Many times in history, people believed that extreme measures taken now would translate into nirvana sometime in the future. The Holocaust comes quickly to mind. It was Sold as a way to solve all Germany’s problems at an undefined date. If the Third Reich was still in existence, would anyone believe that the Final Solution would have been set aside so Germans could live in harmony in their newly cleansed country? The answer to that is most certainly no. Survival of totalitarian regimes requires enemies and shiny objects.

Is there any belief that if we commit to war, famine and freezing to death to bring down global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius the climate fanatics will sit back and reflect on a job well done? We already have that answer. They now demand that they dictate where and when we live, what we will eat whether we can travel. They never say if there is a benefit to demanding we follow their unachievable lifestyle and continue to ignore that a majority of the world’s population can’t afford their privileged existence. At that point, they appear extreme and authoritarian, disconnected from reality and only able to see a utopian world as the four horsemen of the apocalypse circle. Why is this any different from the vision Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others had, which translated solely into death and suffering? Another similarity is the need to avoid scrutiny while selling final solutions, thus the insistence that the science has been settled. 

The darkest moments in our history were predicated on a blind belief in solutions that played out as horrific events. Which entire populations bought into, supported and enabled or were subjugated to those solutions believing that they had to relinquish morals, freedom and, often, their lives for the undefined greater good.

To Bring Along Populations, You Must First Banish Free Speech

Ideologues don’t deal with reality and hate free speech. They define everything using words such as existential, world-ending event, and we must act now. It’s the ultimate shiny object strategy. If what they had to sell had value and was supported by the science they claim to love, the argument would speak for itself. They wouldn’t have to cloak it in catastrophic speech and unsubstantiated outcomes. Government and the media wouldn’t have to shut down people who question the doctrine, cancel them, or destroy their lives as they would be lone voices in a wilderness devoid of fact and content. The climate lobby has effectively kicked into touch any discussion or investigation of their set of “facts” with the “settled science” statement. As I have stated before, it took the Catholic Church until 1996 to declare that the “settled science” of the earth being flat was wrong. Many lost their lives, permanently cancelled, for contradicting the flat earth settled science. 

Today with the power of a compliant media, the climate lobby doesn’t have to kill the heretic; they have to destroy them entirely in the public square or not allow them access. That begs the question; how settled is the “settled science”? If it is so fragile that a few heretics can persuade large swathes of the population with lies, to be clear, that is the argument presented by the climate alarmists. Then on what foundation are they asking us to completely dismantle our civilization, kill millions from starvation, freeze in the winters, fry in the summer and never leave our high-density boxes? It should be compelling and not based on an ideology like the flat earth lie. 

Labour should have outlined solutions addressing today’s reality

Labour should have addressed the fundamental issues of war, famine, and fuel poverty. Presented solutions which addressed real and palatable existential threats. Provided a set of solutions to the elderly that would manage the real possibility that many will lose their lives having surrendered our energy security to other countries. They might have wanted to present a vision for the realities of today and not immediately move to their ideological view that we will all die sometime in the future and not submit a lie that we will be free of fossil fuels in 8 years.

When faced with hard decisions, most politicians point to the shiny object. They believe their political survival is jeopardized by addressing reality and prefer to hide amongst ill-defined and unproven future solutions. Unfortunately, we are walking blindly into a regional war with a state controlling most of Western Europe’s energy needs. If Russia stops supplying energy to Europe, the effect will be disastrous and deadly and they won’t even need to fire a shot, bringing Europe to its knees, necessitating a new Faustian bargain with an autocratic nation who sees us as an existential threat 

The Nord Stream Attack Signals a Serious Escalation in the March Towards Total European Conflict

The Nord Stream pipeline is spewing millions of gallons of Methane into the atmosphere.  Today the EU has said, without identifying the culprit, it was sabotage.  From a security and climate perspective, this is a disaster.  Europe’s energy crisis will not be solved by the installation of more inefficient solar panels or blights on the landscape in the form of massive windmills.  It will be sorted by force and a complete 180 degree change in how we source energy. 

The progressive leaders of the western world, for the most part, have never experienced war.  They might want to note that War will erase any gain from electric vehicles many thousands of times over.  Our fanatical commitment to “climate change” is walking us to a place most have never seen before.

The war in Ukraine supported by billions of dollars and Ukraine flag overlays on twitter accounts will only become real when it lands with both feet in western Europe.  That event comes closer every day and the Nord Stream sabotage is a dramatic step forward in bringing conflict to Germany’s leafy suburbs and it spilling over into the rest of mainland Europe.

The Italian election is signaling a change in Europe.  Call the new Prime Minister what you will, fascist, Mussolini replacement, whatever slur you can think of, but she’s there because people are starting to reject the progressive agenda.  What are the predictions for the rest of Europe after a winter of cold and death and potentially a threat of war?  Hopefully political change.  The outcome could be much worse.

Few periods in human history have seen this level of insanity.  The complete rejection of common sense for an idealistic pipe dream.  Nazi Germany pursued a utopia created by the extermination of millions, but they were not able to convince much of the rest of the world it was an appropriate way forward.  Nor did they force their views down the throats of hapless third world countries.  

The current global psychosis will bring about the end of civilization far quicker than a 1 degree change in global temperatures.  It is human nature to ignore what must be done and concentrate on trying to boil oceans and pursue what can’t be done.

Europe is heading towards, at best, thousands of deaths from lack of fuel this winter.  At worst, a regional conflict caused by leaders blind to the realities of the world, convinced by their own hubris that continuing to attempt to solve a problem which will resolve if they leave markets alone, is a better policy than protecting their citizens from war, famine and death. 

Is the NHS a Cult?

This was written at the beginning of the year, 2022 and I’m only posting it now. However, nothing has changed other than the NHS has continued to deteriorate……..


a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

Oxford Languages

The Daily Telegraph reported this week that the proposed chairman of the English National Health Service (NHS) was grilled by parliamentarians who were concerned he had used private healthcare. More importantly they questioned his devotion to the NHS given his lack of exclusive use.

An opinion piece in the same paper asked why we weren’t reforming our two worst services. The BBC and the NHS. I don’t know anything about BBC reform, but I have a great deal of experience trying to inject change into the NHS. The NHS has mastered repelling change.

At times Prime Ministers have had a positive impact of the NHS’s delivery of services. When Blair left office, he had effectively reduced waits for outpatient surgery to almost nil. All but stopped patients from dying in A&E’s because they were not prioritised with a sever heart condition.

The headwinds Blair faced were extreme. In 2011 the former NHS CEO Nigel Crisped penned a book which encapsulated why the NHS is able to thwart systemic change saying “I wanted the private sector working in the NHS on our terms”. Control is essential to insure change wont take place.

This brings us back to the current debate on the new chairman. Essentially he needs to drink the Kool Aid. Dispense with an objective, not the NHS viewpoint. I’ll separate comments about the civil servants like Crisp who run the “service” from providers. The “top of the shop” runs the NHS as a Ponzi scheme. They continually tell Parliament they need more money to provide the service and then never, let me repeat that, never achieve the goals they set for themselves. Only to return year after year with the same unchallenged excuse.

Unlike Madoff, they have successfully fended off real scrutiny of what they should have supplied for the money provided. A major fly in the ointment are those who are not members of the cult. They can actually look past the hyperbolic claims of the members. Theirs is a dispassionate view.

When you pull back the curtain, you see a failing public service that is very reliant on private healthcare. NHS managers quietly let them in the back door to help treat patients. They stand on the front steps of the hospital claiming that the private sector are only in healthcare for the money and may put patient’s lives at risk.

The reality is that you must appoint a Chairperson who will sit above the day to day rhetoric. Objectively view what has been asked of the service and what has it delivered or failed to do so. If the NHS is the vehicle the cultists claim it is, struggling from underinvestment while remaining the very best way to treat patients. This will shine through. The spin will be unnecessary.

Brexit For Our Time!

Knife to a Gunfight

Johnson has always fancied himself as a modern-day Churchill. The last-minute “deal” on Brexit was more reminiscent of Chamberlain. Another Sir, Sean Connery, once famously said, “never bring a knife to a gunfight”. In some respects, we didn’t even have a knife. Claims that the EU was “mean”, and didn’t deal in “good faith” fails to acknowledge that the EU’s first duty is to secure the best deal possible for the single market. The right thing for our government to have done was to have taken the same attitude towards our negotiating stance. Instead, we lept out of the bed completely naked, screaming divorce.

Another issue is the EU doesn’t trust us. They would have loved to keep us in the Union. They expressed this wish by handing us the best deal out of any members. Was it mean when we went to Brussels year after year complaining and asking for more? Or, was it looking after our interests? The EU saw it as dealing in bad faith. It seems they were excellent students.

What Deal Did We Get?

We don’t really know, is the truth. Much of what is to come has not been settled. We did get a deal for fisherman. In fact, that’s about all Boris could point to in his news conference. That and the laws we wouldn’t have to bow to. Unless we want to trade with the EU. He left that bit out.

Johnson’s promise to have a non-tariff border was a lie, much like the £350 million for the NHS. Those were his two big promises. Neither were true. Does anyone remember that? Other than fishermen, we did secure tariff-based trade for manufacturing. Those businesses are busy trying to conform to the new reality. Yes, I said tariff-based trade. The added paperwork and cost is substantial and may make many uncompetitive. We have already experienced the queues brought about by delays at the channel. Just in time supply chains are a thing of the past for now, and that will also have a negative impact on British manufacturers.

The government brings up fish a lot. Even that wasn’t an overall success. In five years we may well be back to fish wars. Remember those? A return to the good old days, you know, blackouts, the IMF bailout, and strikes. Can’t wait.

We do have a deal most of which is undefined. Little like a mortgage with a payment amount to be determined at some point by the bank.

What About the 80%?

Johnson and his barrow boys have yet to mention what’s going to happen to the majority of our economy, services. We are a service-based economy. They are too busy selling day-old fish. Fish accounts for less than 1%, although you would have thought we all owned boats.

The largest contributor by far to GDP is financial services. They are currently in limbo. The firms based solely in the UK are. Those with offices in Europe are downsizing UK operations and expanding in places like Frankfurt and Paris.

Any chance the EU will cry foul for us? Stop International firms moving people and money to Europe? Yeah right. No, the reverse. In the same way, we took advantage of the single market to make London an international finance hub, the single market countries who have long wanted a piece of London’s action will be hard at work building empires off our back. They have already moved trillions of pounds in assets out of the UK.

He’s Behind You!

It’s probably fitting that a Brexit deal appeared during the Pantomime season. They have all the same elements. A feckless arrogant character who can’t seem to keep up with his nemesis requiring help from the audience. In our case the audience failed to participate.

We are where we are, an idealistic mess punctuated by throwing our toys out of the pram. The EU didn’t hand us a bad deal; we created it ourselves and the government owns the results. That’s why they are spinning hard pointing to fish and ignoring elephants.

Hilarious article about Jill Biden’s Ed D.

The head exploding faux incredulity over Mrs Biden’s inappropriate use of an honorific has hit fever pitch.

There is little doubt the elites who are complaining most. Were most likely sniping about the use of Jill’s Dr over gin and tonics before the conservative media’s incoming fire.

Great read from NR

Jill Biden’s Doctorate Is Garbage Because Her Dissertation Is Garbage

Tap Your Brexit Slippers Together Three Times and Get a Covid Test?

Covid Tests and NHS Access Say it All

Covid tests are a distilled Brexit reality. Want to get a Covid test in Croatia? €70 back in 12 Hours. Italy? €80, back in 24 hours. Florida that bastion of people dying in the street due to private healthcare? Free. Result in 12 hours. The UK, free at the point of use healthcare? £275, back in 36 hours, if you’re lucky. Want to see? have a cataract? 2-year wait on the NHS. Wink and a nod between you and your NHS doctor. Do it tomorrow in the private hospital for £3000. Can’t walk, need a new Knee? 2 years plus NHS wait. Jump the queue for £12,000 in your local NHS hospital. Free at the point of use if you have a couple of years to be invalid. Burden on the family or you enjoy pain. But remember, it’s free at the point of use. Covid tests are the petri dish of what’s to come. Overpriced, incompetent delivery and a complete lack of customer service with little choice.

What About Brexit?

Anyone remember the seventies? Supermarket shelves were almost empty? Choice? Nonexistent. If you holiday in France or Spain, you will know that quality, choice and price all trump UK food stores. Not to mention other retailers. This week the government told stores to stockpile food. We’ve got the EU right where we want them! Anyone want to guess why? What will change at the end of this month to make the situation any better? Apparently a “Canada style arrangement”. What the hell does that mean? It’s not as far fetched as the “Australian Arrangement” though. Both ignore the first rule in trade. Keep it local. Trading with Subsaharan countries or being allowed to stay 90 days in Switzerland is fluff. They’re blowing smoke. Welcome to the third world where idealistic platitudes substitute for reality.

It’s a good guess the green and pleasant land we were promised never really existed. Instead, we will be regressing towards the days when we had to beg the IMF to financially bail us out. The reason we joined the single market in the first place. If you can’t go forward, why not head to the worst situation we found ourselves in over the last 100 years. Makes sense. Might want to try cigarette burns to extremities. That will show them. The old story of I hit him in the knee with my face.

Where do we go From here?

Now that we are hell-bent on regressing back to the future. Ignoring the fact we have been a far more financially vibrant and successful country since joining the single market. Where do we go from here? Cliff, lemmings comes to mind. We’re heading towards a precipice we have no idea as to its severity. How far we fall. If we are lucky, not much. Brexiteers tell us the pain will be worth it. For how long? Don’t be so daft. Stupid question remoaner. Just jump off the cliff and shut your mouth.

Why ask a simple question like, “How will this impact my family?” Close your eyes and believe, moron………………….