Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 4° London Hi 6°C / Lo -1°C

Johann Hari: Ignore the propaganda and spin – the Tory party hasn't changed

Cameron can tuck away his party on a poster, but not in parliament

David Cameron won't  be able to defy his party's core instincts for long

CHRIS COADY/ NB ILLUSTRATION

David Cameron won't be able to defy his party's core instincts for long

David Cameron made his own face the apex of the Conservative Party’s first burst of electioneering. He stared out across Britain’s high streets and motorway overpasses with a giant airbrushed glower of concern, while the word ‘Conservative’ was tucked away on the posters in small letters, like a slightly embarrassing smell. There’s a reason for this: the reality of the Conservative Party today severely punctures Cameron’s central pitch – and he knows it.

Since he became leader, he has been telling us “the Conservative Party has changed”. But is it true? Let’s start with the issue that Cameron said was “terrific evidence” of a “different Conservative Party” – global warming. Until 2005, he had never mentioned the subject, except to mock wind farms as “giant bird-blenders” and to demand “a massive road-building programme” in defiance of all environmental sense. But then he abruptly announced he was the true champion of this cause and people should “vote blue to go green.” The influential website ConservativeHome thought the New Cameron didn’t speak for the Party, so last month they commissioned a poll of the candidates selected to fight the most winnable Tory seats. They were asked to rank nineteen issues facing Britain in order of importance – and global warming came at the very bottom. The soon-to-be Conservative MPs think radically altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere is less important than imprisoning even more people and reclaiming powers from Scotland.

But even this is misleading. The party doesn’t just accord a low priority to deal with this problem – most actively deny it exists. The Spectator’s political editor, James Forsyth, reports: “At Tory country-house gatherings, global warming scepticism has replaced Europe as the issue of the day.” Tim Montgomerie, the head of ConservativeHome and physical embodiment of the Tory id, says: “I’m confident the sceptics are going to win. It’s for Cameron to decide how he’s going to get out of this – he’s lost the battle already.” This has only grown over the past month, when a handful of the tens of thousands of scientists working on this issue have been shown to have made a few mistakes. The massed ranks of the Tory party have seized on this as “proof” that releasing massive amounts of warming gases into the atmosphere won’t cause the planet to get warmer. The true message is: vote blue, screw green.

How about opposing the stale old prejudices the Party used to marinate itself in? In his mid-twenties Cameron went on a week long “jolly” to white supremacist South Africa, breaking sanctions against the regime, paid for by a shadowy pro-Aparthied lobbying group. But he says he regrets that and the party now abhors racism. There’s a fascinating insight into whether this is true in the new book ‘True Blue: Strange Tales From A Tory Nation.’ For the past three years, the journalists Chris Horne and David Matthews have volunteered for the Conservative Party, to uncover what its activists really think. Matthews is a warm, charismatic – and black.

Everywhere he went, he was treated with suspicion and contempt. Horne writes: “The proportion of people who gave him a wide berth was around three quarters, and it was hard to escape the conclusion that this was because he was black?. The Tories we met seemed fantastically uncomfortable around David.” Even in the most liberal Tory surroundings, like inner London, there was a “constant, almost knee-jerk mild racism,” where they felt the need to obsessively talk about immigration and race in disparaging ways in his presence. At a typical Tory dinner they attended, Cecil Parkinson said of Africa: “God decided to create the most beautiful continent on earth – wide rivers, fertile land, and every kind of natural resource you can think of. An angel said to God – if you make a place like that then it will completely dominate the earth. And God said – wait until you see the people I am going to put in it.” The assembled party members loved it, and said they missed good old Ian Smith, the last white supremacist ruler of Rhodesia.

When they were campaigning against the Liberal Democrat Susan Kramer, they were repeatedly told to emphasize she was an “outsider” and a “foreigner.” Horne asked what it meant, and he was told: “She’s a Jewess, but we aren’t allowed to say that? So all we can say is that she got off the train from Hungary.”

Everywhere they went, the Party’s candidates and members said Cameron’s claims to have reformed are mere spin to win the election. For example, Ian Oakley, who was selected to be Tory candidate for Watford, bragged: “Last year it was all green this, and all green that? all that bollocks. People just want lots and lots and lots of cheap petrol. And we are going to give it to them.” The book alleges that he then said that he planned to make many trips to Israel where he would take a machine gun and a flame-thrower to destroy Palestinian villages. (He was later forced to resign, ove an unrelated matter.) Yes, there are some nutters in every party, but Horne and Matthews found similar reservoirs of prejudice everywhere they looked in Conservatism.

Indeed, any minor attempt to put meat on Cameron’s professed agenda is being met with projectile vomiting from the guts of the party. When Joanne Cash – a pregnant woman – was imposed on the constituency of Westminster North, there was a rebellion by the local party that forced Cash to resign. They said she wouldn’t be able to have a child and work at the same time. The local party agent Jonathan Fraser-Howells reportedly fumed to her: “It makes me sick seeing pregnant stomachs around.” (He denies saying it.) Cash was only reinstated with great effort, after the Cameroons realised what a biting PR disaster it was.

Next week, I’ll look at how two other forces – cash from the City, and evangelical Christians – are also distorting the Party’s agenda.

Of course, you might say that none of this matters. Cameron is the leader, and he is sincerely committed to a modernized agenda. But there’s two flaws with this argument. Cameron can tuck away the Tory Party on a poster, but he can’t tuck them away in parliament: they will be the source of his power. A leader can’t defy this Party’s core instincts for long, especially when he has (at best) a small majority. Every barking-right backbencher will have to be wooed and soothed and fed red meat to get legislation through. Cameron will be accountable to deeply retrograde forces – and they will demand policies that worsen poverty or global warming or prejudice.

Even more importantly, Cameron’s commitment to this agenda is shaky and superficial anyway. Remember: his reaction to the Great Crash was to tell the City “we must not let the left use this as an excuse to wreck an important part of the British and world economy” and to start preaching hardcore Thatcherite slash-and-trash economics. He told the Spectator: “If you want to know if I’m a Tory, ask John Redwood” – the global warming denying, market fundamentalist Vulcan who represents the ugliest fringe of the Major years. When he thought an election was looming, the Tory leader decided to make it a front-of-the-window policy to give a huge tax cut to the richest 3000 estates in Britain – a revelation of his priorities that should cause any claim he is “progressive” to be greeted with belly-laughs.

The evidence suggests that when he is faced with a challenge, Cameron rushes right back up the road to Damascus – into the loving arms of an unreformed right-wing party.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

More from Johann Hari

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Jah.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:14 am (UTC)
Sir, I must protest most vehemently. Poor people give off an offensive odour (much the same as ginger haired people) and it is a noted fact that the poor have tails. I lament the passing of our Old County Regiments which kept us the Envy Of The Globe. I remain, Col Ronald Moncrieffe-Broxted, VC.
Right wing deniers
[info]cranelake wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:09 am (UTC)
Great article. Point about "green" Conservatives is spot on. They're a very rare breed. Instead right wingers in general embrace the climate change denier mantra of "it just being an excuse to tax" check out the comments on this blog to see what I mean.

http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/europe/denmark/should-climate-change-deniers-apologise-to-the-future/comment-page-1/#comments

They seem totally unable to look at the bigger picture and move beyond their discredited right wing dogma...sad when the future of the planet is at stake.
Re: Right wing deniers - [info]cs500 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:07 am (UTC) Expand
Your pro-Tory propaganda
[info]richoperth wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:54 am (UTC)
This article is a subtle piece of propaganda, presumably intended to reassure the many former Tory voters who have given up on David Cameron and intend to vote BNP or UKIP. Cameron and his Blue-Labour ideology are not wanted, and it may even take another Brown government to convince the real Tories to kick out Cameron and install a real conservative leadership.
Re: Your pro-Tory propaganda
[info]nightside242 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:35 am (UTC)
Johann Hari a pro-Tory? That's a new one!
In that case
[info]sartoresartus wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:10 am (UTC)
thank heavens for Labour, a bastion of traditional leftwing values like cradle-to-grave surveillance, indefinite detention, torture and the illegal invasion of third countries. Things, as they used to say in my day, can only get better.

Re: In that case
[info]hurstgreen wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:37 am (UTC)
The usual deeply unpleasant comments from Johann Hari. I find his myopic approach, "goodies" (Labour) and "baddies" (Conservatives) naive and immature. It's scare tactics, more akin to Orwellian, Soviet-style messaging than rational, truthful debate. It makes me more want to vote for Cameron than less because the approach seems to be to tell me that I'm immoral for not doing what Hari wants.
Re: In that case - [info]seraosha - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:19 am (UTC) Expand
Re: In that case - [info]hurstgreen - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:25 am (UTC) Expand
Re: In that case - [info]dixiedean99 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 06:54 am (UTC) Expand
Re: In that case - [info]idonotbelieveit - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:01 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: In that case - [info]thelzdking - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:33 am (UTC) Expand
Excuse Me?......
[info]simoncochrane wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:37 am (UTC)
Johann Hari's yet again indulging in his shrill leftist hysteria, which won't surprise anyone with an open mind; and true to form, this article is shot full of emotive rubbish and half-truths.

No-one has the time for a forensic analysis of this third-rate sixth-form essay, but one of his 'points' in particular cries out to be shot down in flames.

He says............."when a handful of the tens of thousands of scientists working on this issue [global-warming] have been shown to have made a few mistakes"........

For 'handful', let's correctly say about 31,000. And for 'a few mistakes', let's correctly say that a few mistakes actually equates to conscious distortion, manipulation, and cherry-picking of actual climate data.

And let's not forget the desperate attempts to silence those who question the IPCC's political dogma, and the illegal suppression of FOI act requests from anyone who asks to see the original data....most have which has spookily been 'lost' or 'erased' by the IPCC's sympathetic so-called 'scientists'.

Once again, Johann Hari has proved that he is consistently a far-left propagandist whose only audience is at least as far-left as he is. He may be happy with that, but if his ambition is to be regarded as a true journalist, he needs to drop his obviously far-leftist bent like a hot potato.

Re: Excuse Me?......
[info]hurstgreen wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:46 am (UTC)
Excellent post. Spot on.
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]adanuff - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 07:42 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]bigfil - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:26 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]simoncochrane - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 06:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]bemjammin - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]simoncochrane - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 06:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]bemjammin - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:54 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]simoncochrane - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]chris_c_d - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 04:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Excuse Me?...... - [info]simoncochrane - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 06:29 pm (UTC) Expand
tripe
[info]bigbread wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 03:00 am (UTC)
If you keep publishing trash like this,( and paying for it) your paper's dwindling circulation will fall even further.
Re: tripe
[info]mad9_man wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:17 pm (UTC)
I totally agree, mate - what a hopeless meandering piece of claptrap from Hairy - surely they don't pay him to scrawl such rubbish? However, you've all been busy posting so thanks for the entertainment!
Euro Division
[info]britdragon wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 04:32 am (UTC)
I believe that Europe is going to tear the Tories apart even more than in the past. They may not have a problem with a pro-EU grouping within their own party as it doesn't exist anymore. However, their MP's will be demanding that Cameron vetoes many new EU initiatives as well as reclaiming power from Brussels.

Cameron will be in a position even worse than Thatcher/Major where it will be economic suicide for the UK not to go along with the rest of the EU but knowing that his own colleagues will destroy him for doing so.
if only...
[info]masorete wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 06:25 am (UTC)




Tell me it is so, Mr Hari!
Callmedave has convinced me he is what he seems to be; the sort of leftist dummy who swallows the warmist scam, advocates all women/homosexual/black short-lists and thinks that our vibrant, super efficient public sector should be greatly enlarged. Your thoughtful and dispassionate musings give me some hope, however.
So ?
[info]hackneyhal wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 07:33 am (UTC)
So you're saying what ? We should vote Brown back in for another 5 years ? Ha ha ha ha.
And have you reformed, Mr Hari?
[info]bullingdon1 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 07:56 am (UTC)
It was YOU, Mr Hari, who attended a conference recently of unreformed socialists in the 'stop the right' conference. A movement supported by you, regardless of its impact of socialism on essential human freedoms that do not even enter into the equation as far as you are concerned: of the steady encroachment of the nanny state and its vile pc culture; or of the thousands of children let down in our school by a debasement of their education; or of the soldiers sent into battle with cheap and faulty Eastern European ammunition; or of filthy hospitals; or of the broken, debased and violent society created by the movement that you support. Bring on Cameron and his Conservatives and get rid of the loony left, I say.
this really is the usa now
[info]laconico wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:35 am (UTC)
get ready for decades of facile hawk/dove debate and a gradual fade to black as the east takes the globe
HARI CONTRIBUTES TO INDEPENDENT'S DEMISE:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:37 am (UTC)
This childish essay is very poor, badly written and full of conjecture. No wonder this newspaper is losing money.
Re: HARI CONTRIBUTES TO INDEPENDENT'S DEMISE:
[info]pete_s wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:55 pm (UTC)

I think if this were an employment tribunal, this article could be used as evidence of 'constructive dismissal'.
Re: HARI CONTRIBUTES TO INDEPENDENT'S DEMISE: - [info]sceptic007 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Minor points of disagreement.......
[info]rhysjaggar wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:46 am (UTC)
1. Many people, Tory or non-Tory, put 'global warming' low on their agenda for a simple reason: that is where it SHOULD be. The modellers are wrong, their models are wrong and each week the simplistic nonsense is ridiculed as hard science shows how much more complex is the situation than their hyped extremes. I'm sure you strongly agree with carbon credits shutting down UK plants to be replaced with dirty ones in India. And I'm sure you personally will pay your entire net worth to make it happen......you loyal UK citizen....
2. There are some seriously dippy doo members of the Labour Party too. They think that talking mantras changes economies. It doesn't. It creates hot air. You need to take a really hard look at how much money your party wastes through promoting talking shops. And you need to express horror at the pointless waste of 85% of it.........
3. I want you to put in print a coherent strategy for how Britain is NOT going to go bankrupt. And if you can't you are not going to trash people who propose doing something about the ballooning deficit. I know, I know, you'll run Britain's deficit up until the election, then you'll slash and burn. What's so moral about that, Mr pie-in-the-sky self-important little scribbler??
4. Please continue highlighting the racist aspects of small minorities in the Tory party. I highlighted one in Cheadle a few years ago and suggested he shouldn't be allowed to stand for Parliament again after smearing his opponent disgracefully in the local media. I don't think he is.....
5. If you want to continue to be a journalist, I suggest you take a long hard education course in the realities of climate science. You are the most ignorant, self-important windbag in that field I read and I read a lot about that subject. The IPCC is a seriously corrupt organisation, the science has been hyped for scaremongering (a serious charge) and opponents belittled and attacked in a totalitarian manner. I hope you realise it is the same as calling you a poof, suggesting you be sent to be 'cured' and calling you a fat ignorant bastard if you open your mouth about the subject again..........

Are you intelligent enough to understand what I am saying?? I am saying that prejudice oozes from your core, it's just that YOUR prejudices are different to those of right wing Tories.

Yours are just as objectionable.
Re: Minor points of disagreement.......
[info]elsie_zoot wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:10 pm (UTC)
Totally agree. Criticism of the left now is branded "fascism". Scary. Very scary. I'm not a Tory voter, never have been. (My MP recently went on a jolly to the Bahamas or somewhere, while his constituents, who live in a deprived area suffer redundancies. Bet you wouldn't live there, Mr Socialist Journalist. But I digress. )

The reason most people don't put climate change on the top of their list of priorities is because WE ARE BANKRUPT. People are living with the threat of redundancy and losing their homes because the useless bunch of self-serving idiots purporting to be "socialist" got into power. PC initiatives and other such claptrap have done ZERO to deal with racism. In fact, the New Labour monster has created a culture where bashing the English (witness the Scots being broadcast on TV shouting about Scotland for the Scots) is OK. All that does is promote social division. (I'm married to a Scot and have never experienced any anti-English attitudes whenever I have visited, but I don't think the state broadcaster should be allowed to show this stuff without questioning the people who shout such things.)

I would like to point out that the Labour party hasn't changed either. When I was growing up, I used to ask adults why we didn't have a Labour government. "Oh my God," they'd say. "You can't have a Labour government. They can't be trusted with the economy". And you know what? They were right.
Re: Minor points of disagreement....... - [info]dancing_daze - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 06:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Minor points of disagreement....... - [info]simoncochrane - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Mark Sampson
[info]394pjo wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:48 am (UTC)
I don't care if Cameron is a fascist promising to take away my wife and daughter and put them in state run brothels and send me to a slave labor camp, I will vote for him because I want to smack Gordon Brown in the mouth.
Horseshit vs. bullshit
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 09:38 am (UTC)
Well that would be a very stupid move then. Gordon Brown is rubbish, I'll admit, but your post is an indication of the broken, bipolar political system in which we operate.

Why not vote for a change in the system where not voting for horseshit means you have to vote for bullshit?

Only the Lib Dems want to change the way politics works. The other two are just same old same old.
Re: Horseshit vs. bullshit - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:27 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Mark Sampson - [info]candiceanne9 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:15 am (UTC) Expand
IGNORE THE SPIN: HARI HASN'T CHANGED
[info]sidsnot wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 08:57 am (UTC)
Still an ardent "scrounging" Socialist Hari?
We have been warned...
[info]dinsylwy wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 09:03 am (UTC)
"Next week, I�ll look at how two other forces � cash from the City, and evangelical Christians � are also distorting the Party�s agenda." Oh, goody. Can't wait...
The Tory Party hasn't changed
[info]undart wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 09:33 am (UTC)
So the Tory party hasn't changed. Good, at least the voters will know what it stands for. Labour or New Labour has changed however. A friend of mine who is a hard working man, he might currently be referred to as 'white van man,' telephoned me yesterday. He has worked everyday of his life doing not only his full-time, working class job but also a part time gardening job. In addition for over twenty years he has given up his Sundays to work as both a coach and a referee with pre-teen football teams. He asked me if I had been through Tower Hamlets and Whitechapel recently. 'It's like an alien land, the streets all have two names, you wouldn't recognise it, the country has been sold out,' he told me.
Now I am sure that you will simply label him racist and move on and perhaps 'New Labour' no longer need his vote but the point is that he genuinely feels betrayed and that he has no voice. He is a very intelligent man. He's never going to vote BNP or for any extremist party but one thing that he does know is that New Labour lied and changed.
Re: The Tory Party hasn't changed
[info]ddraig_ddu wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:11 pm (UTC)

"So the Tory party hasn't changed. Good, at least the voters will know what it stands for."

Yes - it stands for maintaining the privileges of the priveliged, as it always has done.
I'm sure this will do wonders to help your working class mate!
[info]backtothepool wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 09:38 am (UTC)
first time i have read one of your articles and i can say it will be the last.
Drivel, what is it with you left wing journalists are you in a club because you all preach from the same
hymn sheet f**k the UK and its people we have an agenda for you to come and join us.
Does this paper have a death wish allowing this type of journalist to spew out his left wing crap.
Such unnecessary vitriol
[info]dancing_daze wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:06 am (UTC)
Wow - there are some deeply troubled and knee-jerk reactionary comments here ... it surprises me. When the Indy first began it attracted a thoughtful readership, but now its choice of articles resembling those taken from the Sun, the Mail, OK, and Hello seems to have attracted that kind of readership.

So we have right-wing screw-the-world-I'm-alright-Jack reactionaries who will vote a vacuous party like Tories who have relied on public hatred of nuLab and substantial amounts of spin to try to secure power just to give Brown a slap in the kisser; the AGW deniers coming out from the wood piles again with their over-exaggerated claims of hoax and scandal regarding modelisation of complex adaptive systems (you try doing it better!) and the twists that have been put on this by those who abhor the idea of being accountable for our collective activities; and those who lay claim to privilege and amassing wealth by whatever means in bouts of selfish self-congratulation and desperately seek a party who will protect that embedded silver spoon.

The Tories have blood on their hands as do nuLab for the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Tories have not challenged the growing surveillance of the nuLab state (nor have they made any promises about reversing such laws and violations of civil liberties), they can spin away their racism, sexism, and homophobia, but it is thinly veiled even amongst the more "progressive" Tory councillors, and as for any thoughts about helping those less privileged than themselves - no ways! rather let the market forces take care of them because it was their fault anyway. The Tory party is just as despicable in its own way as the nuLab turned out to be.

I do hope that PR is brought in, that the LibDems can get their act together to bring out a coherent set of policies and that the smaller more independent parties get a chance to raise their profiles. The Tories and nuLab both however need to be flushed like the excrement they stand for and, in the case of the Tories, seem to represent.
And on, and on
[info]mortysmith wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:25 am (UTC)
"Next week, I’ll look at how two other forces – cash from the City, and evangelical Christians – are also distorting the Party’s agenda."

Evangelical Christians? Seriously? You're not thinking of America's Republican party by any chance?

As for cash from the City, I can't help feeling you've spiked your guns by writing so often about how the need for donations hamstrings every party - how do you plan to spin it as a uniquely Tory problem? Ah well, I'll just have to wait and see.

"Horne asked what it meant, and he was told: 'She’s a Jewess, but we aren’t allowed to say that.'"

Rather like the Labour candidates for constituencies with large Muslim populations who constantly referred to Michael Howard's being Jewish when he was Tory leader? Come to think of it, has Labour ever had a Jewish leader?

"a huge tax cut to the richest 3000 estates in Britain"

This is the oldest logical fallacy in the book - the rich pay the most tax (rightly as I'm sure you'd agree) so a tax cut benefits the rich most. Is that a reason not to cut taxes?

More generally, though, I can't help feeling that this article is a classic case of projection. Your own party (for such they clearly are, even before I have seen your next two articles in their service) got elected by calling itself "New Labour" and finding a dozen people for the front bench who spoke in sentences and didn't look too uncomfortable in a suit, but in reality 90% of them were still the same old class warriors who saw the tax system as a means to take revenge on anyone more successful than them - therefore you naturally imagine that any other party claiming to have changed must be playing the same trick.
Oh, will you please STOP with all this global warming prpagandizing?!
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:39 am (UTC)
Hype and exaggeration:

"radically altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere"

"releasing massive amounts of warming gases into the atmosphere"

Cold, hard, scientific FACT:

Total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to LESS than 0.3% of the greenhouse effect.

Read that figure again, Johann - LESS than 0.3%!

Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Now will you PLEASE stop BANGING ON and ON and ON about climate change and global warming?! You don't understand climate science; you don't know what you are talking about; you just spout lefty-greeny propaganda without checking your facts. And the FACTS are not on your side, they are on the side of the sceptics.

I don't like the colour of the Tories' politics any more than you do, Johann, but on this one issue they happen - perhaps quite accidentally, and for the wrong reasons - to be absolutely right; there are far more important issues to be focusing on the climate change.
Re: Oh, will you please STOP with all this global warming prpagandizing?!
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:53 am (UTC)
Sorry, typo - "there are far more important issues to be focusing on THAN climate change.".

That's better :o)
Hear hear.
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:53 am (UTC)
Those who want to attack this article would be well-advised to counter the QUOTED STATEMENTS made ON RECORD contain therein.

You cannot fight the record: if these vile, racist, anti-Semetic, anti-Scientific, homophobic, anti-environmental things were said, and reported, then there it is.

Labour may be pathetic. New Labour may be contemptible but you cannot imagine them this effluent flowing from their mouths.
Re: Hear hear.
[info]cs500 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:40 pm (UTC)
RE: "this effluent flowing from their mouths"

No, one cannot imagine Labour saying those things. But then the Labour party are responsible for waging a war of cultural-genocide against the Brit'. English, Scot, Welsh and Irish voters (as far as I know), didn't write to their MPs asking - nah, (demanding), that Britain be turned into a non-cohesive, multicultural state that divides, breeds terrorist, and puts those who Built Britain out of work.

Perhaps you wrote Gordon with such a request, if so, I'll wager that you, were the only one.

Orchestrated cultural genocide is a very serious crime against any people. Labour are truly monsters. Other political parties who object, do so from conscience. Clearly, Labour lack a moral-centre. In a clinical sense, self-loathing Labour MPs who support the indigenous-culling of Brits' (via various methods of attrition) make Hitler's ambitions and aspirations appear amateur.

Savile row suits offer no disguise. Labour want the Brit' to die. Those who support the weapon of multiculturalism are used by Brown & Co for their weak-minded views moreover, their belief that preference is racism.
Re: Genocide - [info]ddraig_ddu - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genocide - [info]cs500 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Genocide - [info]dixiedean99 - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 05:18 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Hear hear. - [info]habermaster - Saturday, 20 February 2010 at 10:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Hear hear. - [info]cs500 - Saturday, 20 February 2010 at 11:57 am (UTC) Expand
The more of Iread of the Indo's messages.
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 10:56 am (UTC)
The more I think that the Tories are the government that the British deserve. Racists, chavs, ingrained philistines, pompous, self-aggrandizing post colonial prats.
My biggest problem
[info]binstig wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:00 am (UTC)
I actually quite like David Cameron. He does seem to care and has his concerns, but I can see through a lot of the things he is saying. What has happened to Green Cameron? Seen Pink Cameron lately? To be honest, all I'm seeing is Red Cameron, which is a false Cameron. The Cameron who thinks he can have a love in with Labour voters just to secure victory and force through potentially dangerous legislation.

But my biggest problem is not Cameron, but his party. The Tory party are given no clues as to what they would do for someone like me. They don't seem to care much for students in higher education, they certainly have no solution to the problem of unemployment and I generally fear for our planet if we have a party governing that doesn't care for the issue of global warming.
Prejudice
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:07 am (UTC)
This writer often uses this word, oddly his straight jacket, blinkered view is among the most prejudice I've read.

He presumably confuses the word prejudice with those he defines by his own ill informed assumed baseless opinion or put another way his Prejudice.

And do remember Global Warming was so difficult to prove or move from theory to fact they now hum another tune based on a popular ditty by Vivaldi but renamed Climate Change.
Re: Prejudice
[info]dancing_daze wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:39 am (UTC)
Snotcricket (delightful moniker, that!) wrote: "And do remember Global Warming was so difficult to prove or move from theory to fact they now hum another tune based on a popular ditty by Vivaldi but renamed Climate Change."

I've read this sentence four times now, and I still cannot make head nor tail of it. Actually, anthropogenic climate change has been rather easy to demonstrate (proof is something for courts of law, not science - even gravity has not been proven, although nobody recently has floated off unaccounted for) and the evidence for this is already around us, without the need for models to develop future probability scenarios. What seems to be difficult is how the deniers respond to robust, repeatedly verified scientific evidence: rather than actually coming up with counter-evidence, rather than publishing alternative hypotheses and backing these up with peer reviewed research, rather than be truly sceptical such that, when faced with evidence to the contrary, shift their positions, would instead prefer to latch onto minor (really minor in the scope of the amount of work that has been going on since the 1980s) inconsistencies and errors (which happens in all domains and disciplines, even mathematics, engineering and certainly journalism and politics) and try to make a meal out of it.

So, snotcricket, was there something that you were trying to convey in the sentence I quoted, and if so, can you please be more specific because I really don't get it try as I might.
Re: Prejudice - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 12:32 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]dancing_daze - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 01:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]bemjammin - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]bemjammin - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 03:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 03:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]bemjammin - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 04:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 04:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]bemjammin - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 04:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 04:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Prejudice - [info]snotcricket - Friday, 19 February 2010 at 02:32 pm (UTC) Expand
Correct
[info]majorplonquer wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 11:12 am (UTC)
But I don't think any of you loonies quite get it. That is exactly why many many people will vote Tory. The LAST thing this country needs is more of the same ludicrous government by morons.
Re: Correct
[info]sceptic007 wrote:
Friday, 19 February 2010 at 03:12 pm (UTC)



So we are all loonies are we.


Thanks for that.

Got any other gems ?
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Columnist Comments

rupert_cornwell

Rupert Cornwell: Spy trade likes to keep success a secret

When an intelligence agency makes headlines, it's because of a failure.

howard_jacobson

Howard Jacobson: Proof that free enterprise doesn't work

Individualism is a fine ideal; it’s only a shame individuals suck.

richard_ingrams

Richard Ingrams: Desperate Dave tries to avoid dinosaurs

There's a lack of logic in some of the arguments being advanced by Cameron.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion