Deprecated: Class Jetpack_Geo_Location is deprecated since version 14.3 with no alternative available. in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114 Blog – Page 21 – Croydon Constitutionalists
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Prime Minister asking ‘Why is net zero being continued?’
“More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth”
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Dear Prime Minister
WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?
“Climate Change” is being blamed on human production of CO2 or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is obviously an outrageous and dangerous lie as shown below.
CO2 FACTS
The earth produces CO2 naturally. 140 million years ago the CO2 level in the earth’s atmosphere was 2,500 ppm (parts/million).
CO2 is essential for life on earth.
If the CO2 level falls below about 150 ppm plant life cannot exist. Hence, all animal and human life will expire with it.
More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth.
Global CO2 level in 1850, beginning of the industrial revolution was 280 ppm.
Global CO2 level in 2021 was 410 ppm.
Hence, total increase of CO2 over that period, natural and man made, was 130 ppm.
130 ppm increase over 171 years gives an average annual increase of 0.76 ppm.
Mankind is responsible for about 3% of that annual increase, or approx. 0.02 ppm.
There are about 200 countries in the world. This gives an average of 0.0001 ppm/country/annum! This gives some idea of the small quantities of CO2 involved, even on a global scale.
HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take:
EACH COUNTRY 10,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm/YEAR TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
However, some countries produce far more CO2 than the average. 70% of annual global CO2 emissions are produced by China, the USA, the EU, India, Russia and Japan combined.
The UK produces only 1% of total man made annual CO2 or 0.0002 ppm.
HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take;
“to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is….”
THE UK 5,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
However, the CO2 level was possibly rising faster more recently than the average, perhaps about 2.13 ppm between 2021 and 2022.
The man made element of that would be 3% or 0.064 ppm of which the UK’s contribution to that at 1% would be 0.00064 ppm.
So, even taking one extreme result for CO2 increase it will still take:
THE UK 1,560 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
“Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police”
Banning the use of our diesel and petrol cars by 2035.
Making us buy EV’s at a much higher cost and which are liable to burst into flames if their batteries get wet or damaged. (EV cars have numerous other disadvantages)
De-carbonising the national grid which National Grid (NG) estimates will cost £3 trillion to decarbonise the Grid alone – by 2035 – i.e. at an average cost of around £120,000 per household – to which must be added the cost for industry, transport and agriculture.
Banning the use of our efficient gas boilers and making us buy inefficient heat pumps at great expense.
Making our homes unusable and un-sellable by insisting on unreasonably high and extremely expensive insulation properties.
Decimating our power supplies by abolishing coal fired power stations.
Relying for our electricity supply on unreliable and costly wind and solar farms which require substantial subsidies to be paid by UK consumers. All fossil fuelled and nuclear stations will have been decommissioned by 2035 and the national grid will be unable to meet the additional load of millions of EV chargers and heat pumps. By then the Grid will be almost totally dependent on solar and wind power – when on some days the output from those sources is less than 1GW, i.e. 2% of grid maximum demand – a demand which is expected to reach around 90GW by 2035.
Making householders install smart gas and electricity meters, so that they can be switched off when electricity supplies are overloaded. It will also enable the supply companies to charge exorbitant prices during periods of high demand. NB The use of these meters on householder’s health, (due to high energy pulses they emit) is highly suspect and has not been adequately investigated and proved safe by the authorities.
Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police to make householders let smart meters be installed.
Forming “15 minute” cities and severely restricting residents and visitors rights to travel and move around their cities.
Banning practically all air travel and preventing people from enjoying foreign holidays and seeing their families based abroad.
Severely taxing air travel to put people off from taking holidays abroad.
Scrapping good farmland to re-wild it!
Putting taxes on meat to encourage people to eat bugs.
The key materials needed to meet net zero, range from copper, aluminium, nickel and silicon to rarer metals such as lithium All of which require substantial increases in their production to produce the quantities required for the expected demand in 2035.
The irony is that increasing CO2 greens the planet more: which will increase the global plant life, which will increase the uptake of CO2 by the vegetation and produces more Oxygen!
Paying £billions of UK taxpayers money to UN carbon funds and paying “reparations” to other countries for “polluting” the earth with CO2 during the industrial revolution and afterwards. A totally despicable lie as adding CO2 from 1800 to the present day has had a negligible effect on global warming, (see Figs below).
So, to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is;
“ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?”
NB In fact, of the total 130 ppm increase in CO2 between 1850 and 2021 the 3% man made element was only 3.9 ppm. Of that the UK contribution of approximately 1% was 0.039 ppm over 171 years.
Yet you, Mr Sunak, have ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?
ALL THAT AND MORE TO PREVENT THE UK ADDING 1 ppm CO2 TO THE WORLDS CURRENT TOTAL OF 400 ppm OVER THE NEXT 1,560 YEARS, WHEN DOUBLING THE CO2 LEVEL FROM 400 to 800 ppm MAKES A NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
Hence, in view of the above I would like to ask you to justify WHY each of the points listed above are required and WHY:
You still insist on applying “net zero” when it is so obviously a totally unjustifiable, unattainable and horrendously expensive scam and making the UK taxpayers and residents so utterly persecuted, all for nothing.
You gave away $2 billion of taxpayers money to the UN for just adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years when doubling the global CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has a negligible effect on global warming.
Please treat this as a Freedom of Information request.
We are joined by Samuel Kasumu. A former Special Advisor to PM Boris Johnson and 2017 Tory candidate in Croydon North, Samuel was recently in the running to be the Tory candidate to take on Sadiq Khan in next year’s London Mayoral election. Samuel talks to us about his experiences in Downing Street, Tory politics and his recently published book “The Power of the Outsider”.
You can get hold of Samuel’s book Waterstones and Amazon:
YouTube Contents: 00:00 – Intro 01:40 – Conservative Candidate 06:20 – Croydon North & Steve Reed 10:05 – Downing Street Days 14:00 – Mayor of London 25:40 – New Book 31:55 – Website & Events 34:25 – Outro
You can find out more about Samuel on his website and on Twitter.
In the UK we’ve faced a wet summer, whilst we’ve been told Europe burns. Are we being told the truth? Are these problems man-made or due to climate change? If climate change, what if anything should we do about it?
“there appears to be warming trend there. The trend is, however, consistently less pronounced than even the most conservative climate models have predicted”
“There’s a huge difference between weather and climate”, we’re told by the experts every time there is a cold snap. Trouble is, those same experts are in the habit of announcing that every sunny day is evidence of manmade climate change. Despite these endless pronouncements, I don’t think there is a huge amount of evidence that the number of extreme weather events has actually increased from pre-industrial times. So far, anyway.
That being said, I am not a total climate change sceptic. I have looked at the temperature graphs, as everyone else has, and there appears to be warming trend there. The trend is, however, consistently less pronounced than even the most conservative climate models have predicted, indicating that it may be less of an issue than some climate scientists think. It’s looking like we’ll see between two and three degrees of warning this century. Whilst there will likely be negative consequences to this (as well as some positive consequences), I think the people of our species have surmounted greater challenges in the past.
“There is simply no way to hit the arbitrary target of net zero emissions by 2050 without bringing about the mass immiseration of the British people”
I’m therefore of the opinion that the cure is overwhelmingly likely to be worse than the disease. There is simply no way to hit the arbitrary target of net zero emissions by 2050 without bringing about the mass immiseration of the British people. Undoubtedly the worst hit would be those on the lowest incomes. All of this would be little more than a gesture, as it’s now clear that the rest of the world would not follow our example. Large emitters like China and India will continue to prioritise rapid economic development over carbon emission reductions, leaving those countries that pursued net zero with all the pain and little or nothing to show for it.
Join us for an interview and Q&A with Howard Cox Reform UK Candidate for Mayor of London on Wednesday 18th October at 7pm.
Venue:
Upstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF
Part of our #ThirdWednesday drinks and events, we hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club, and POLITICS in PUBS a group of people from across the political spectrum who value the freedom to question and to speak openly.
Join usUpstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 18th October, from 7pm. Space in the room will be first come first served.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
“Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify”
To the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Department for Energy Security & Net Zero 1 Victoria Street, Westminster SW1H OET
16th September, 2023
Dear Ms Couthino
Freedom of Information Request – UK Net Zero
I believe that the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify and explain why he did this when he had no authority to do so from the UK public and UK taxpayers and;
We have hundreds of schools plus an unknown number of hospitals, museums, libraries etc., which are unsafe due to crumbling concrete construction.
Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there was no money to repair the schools, so all school repairs would have to be paid out of the existing education budget.
Why you, and the Conservative Party, have completely ignored the data provided by Professor Happer that PROVES adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has an imperceptible effect on global warming.
So where did the £1.6 billion taxpayers money come from and why was it thrown away on a completely spurious and un-necessary fund when our schools, hospitals etc., have to be repaired at great cost to the UK taxpayers?
That AGW climate change is a total scam, has never been agreed to by the UK public and taxpayers nor has any liability for global warming as such been fully justified by the government and accepted by the general public as it is a completely spurious and untrue concept.
Why a policy of net zero is being actively pursued by the Conservative government, (despite our leaving the EU which imposed it), which is crippling us now and will cripple the UK and all it’s population for years to come, when the UK’s contribution to global CO2 production will take over 1,500 YEARS TO ADD 1 ppm TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT EVEN DOUBLING THE CURRENT CO2 LEVEL TO OVER 800 ppm HAS AN IMPERCEPTIBLE EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR HAPPER?
Why I am now liable to a £15,000 fine and 12 months prison sentence for denying climate change, according to Rishi Sunak!!
Following the resignation of Nadine Dorries the Mid Bedfordshire by-election is coming up on the 19th October. We’ve spoken with local Dave Holland, who is the Reform Party candidate for the election.
“I felt I had a choice between shouting ever more loudly at the evening news on TV or to get involved”
Can you introduce yourself to the people of Mid-Bedfordshire and tell us what got you involved in politics?
I’m Dave Holland, Reform UK candidate for the Mid Bedfordshire constituency. I was born in Ampthill, have remained local all my life and currently live in Shillington. During the years following the referendum I became increasingly disillusioned about the chaos in government, the lack of will to carry out the will of the majority of the British people.
I felt I had a choice between shouting ever more loudly at the evening news on TV or to get involved. I made a start by volunteering to canvass for the Brexit Party in the Peterborough by-election & my involvement snowballed from there.
Early in 2022 I was assigned the Mid Bedfordshire constituency for Reform UK & made a start putting my campaign together. My initial thinking was that Mid Bedfordshire might be due a by-election at any time as I couldn’t see Boris Johnson lasting for a full term & fully expected Nadine Dorries to be on his honours list. I have been proved correct in that regard & if it was not for Ms Dorries’ intransigence with regard to actually resigning we would have a new MP in Mid Bedfordshire already.
“We believe in and support personal freedoms, personal responsibility, fairness & equality for all”
Can you introduce the party and say a bit about what it stands for.
Reform UK was formed in 2020, from the mothballed foundations of the Brexit Party. We had hoped that after we officially left the EU that our government would embrace the many opportunities of being a sovereign nation, however it soon became apparent that embracing those opportunities was not on their agenda.
We saw the need for fair representation for the many hundreds of thousands of disillusioned, angry Brexiteers who feel that they are being short changed.
There is far more in need of reform than just our relationship with the EU, the level of government waste has increased in recent years. All our public services are in decline while our taxes keep increasing.
Reform UK are a small c conservative Party of low taxes & small state. We believe in and support personal freedoms, personal responsibility, fairness & equality for all. We will never all end up with equal outcomes, but we should ensure that everyone has access to equal opportunity to succeed.
“There is not a single bank branch in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency. Flitwick for example, a town of over 13,000 doesn’t have a bank or post office”
If elected what are the local issues you want to champion?
Mid Bedfordshire faces the same challenges that are happening across the UK. Diminishing services, diminishing standard of living but with ever growing taxes & costs.
One of the biggest issues locally is access to health services. Despite all the house building in the area we have seen no additional capacity in GP surgeries, Dentists or Hospitals. This has led to worse clinical outcomes for thousands and it shows no sign of being addressed. The situation won’t be fixed using the current strategy which is what has got us into this situation.
A larger population requires more hospital beds, not less, more Doctors, not less, more nurses not less. The government blame the care sector, but they have heaped more pressure on the care sector without scaling it with resources required so it could cope as they have cut bed capacity and front-line staff numbers.
We don’t train enough Doctors annually because the BMA haven’t allowed it. 38,000 applied in 2022 nationally, but less than 10,000 were accepted. 5,000 Doctors retire annually, so at the current rate we will never reach a point whereby we are training enough of the vital staff that will allow the NHS to treat us all in good time.
We have many other local issues, transport infrastructure, building on greenbelt land, policing and crime as well as the ongoing loss of local amenities, banks, post offices and other essential facilities. There is not a single bank branch in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency. Flitwick for example, a town of over 13,000 doesn’t have a bank or post office and so people have to drive into Ampthill to access a post office. This doesn’t represent progress to me and is a backward step for any thriving community.
How can people find out more and get involved in your campaign?
I will be out canvassing everyday up until polling day with a team of enthusiastic volunteers. You can find out more about Reform UK at https://www.reformparty.uk and much more about me and my campaign at https://www.dave-holland.co.uk if you would like to come and help us canvassing please email midbedfordshire@reformuk.com for details or call me on 07903 416187.
Mike Swadling opposed the motion, and below is his speech delivered to the society. As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well proposed and drew out some great views from the audience.
University Education should be free for all UK citizens.
Now I might be able to dramatically shorten tonight’s debate for us all. I’m tempted to say, ‘I agree’, I agree, University Education should be free for all UK citizens.
I agree teachers shouldn’t be paid.
I agree scholarly books should be written by authors for free.
I agree canteen staff must give their time freely and be forced to provide the food for the students at no cost.
And if the university doesn’t have the facilities it needs, we must pressgang builders, plumbers, electricians, and anyone else we need to build them, to work, no excuses, at no cost!
Or is that not what you meant?
If you agree with this motion, you must surely agree that anyone upon becoming a qualified lecturer must be conscripted into the profession as some sort of indentured servant, compelled to work for free.
Or do you not agree with that?
“What we’re really talking about here is having someone else pay for it”
Does anyone of you who worked in education, or frankly anywhere, believe you should have worked for free? Education is important do you think people should be forced to give up their time, effort, or property for nothing in the name of education. Of course, you don’t, of course no one thinks teachers should work for free, and of course no one agrees with this motion. No one thinks Education is free, or even should be free. What we’re really talking about here is having someone else pay for it.
University Education of course used to be free for pupils in this country. Before 1998 students would go to university at no cost, some would even receive a grant. But then of course university used to cater to about 30% of the population, prior to 98, and as little as 15% in 1990. We now have over 50% going to university.
It’s easy to provide a service for free at the point of use if it’s used by so few people. As university education grew in the 90s and 00’s of course the costs grew, and these costs needed to be funded. This left the choice of should they be funded by the user of the service who receives the lion share of the benefit or funded by the wider community. To put it bluntly should the cleaner, dustman or Amazon delivery driver pay for the university education of the children of the well to do families who’s houses they service.
“it is more than the amount almost half of the people in this country earn. Only then do you start to repay your loan”
Now let’s consider for a moment what paying for a university education in this country really means. Students are loaned the funds for their course, which costs £9,250 per annum. Repayments to the Plan 2 student loan kick in only when a graduate earns over £27,295 which incidentally puts them in the top half of 20 something income earners, and 53rd percentile of all earners.
This is not a massively high income, but it is more than the amount almost half of the people in this country earn. Only then do you start to repay your loan. Student loans are also written off after 30 years.
General taxation already massively subsidises university education in this country. Our debt to GDP ratio is 100.5% the highest level for over 60 years, going back to when we were still paying for the second world war. This motion asks that we increase it further still, not to improve services, not to incentivise economic growth, not to benefit those who most need it but instead to the benefit of those who have the brightest future and can most afford to pay their way.
“In 2012 only 13% of Free School Meal pupils went to University, today, after all the increases in fees that number is over 20%”
Now it’s not uncommon that people say student loans have put people off higher education, but let’s look at what’s really happened. In 2012 only 13% of Free School Meal pupils went to University, today, after all the increases in fees that number is over 20%. For those eligible for Free School Meals the rate is up to 29%. There is also a huge diversity of pupils going into higher education with 63.5% of Black pupils progressing, 67.8% of Asian and 83.8% of Chinese pupils.
“Fewer opportunities will exist, and they will go to those middle class families with the sharpest elbows”
If we were to make university free to the student, and affordable to the taxpayer we would once again have to cap the number of students at a low number. Who would lose out? Who would be those not able to make the grade. We know, as the evidence from the past shows, it is the working class and the most disadvantaged who will miss out. Fewer opportunities will exist, and they will go to those middle class families with the sharpest elbows. Free University education may feel good but, will in reality deny opportunities to those who most need it and worse will be a regressive tax added onto the bills of those who don’t even receive the benefits of the service.
Now none of this is to say how we provide, and fund university today is ideal. There is lots that can be improved with our current system. Whilst the increase in the numbers going to university is a good thing. The drive to make almost every career accessible only via a degree denies opportunities to millions and means all too often square peg students are driven into round hole jobs.
Surely the wide range of basic care, cleaning, feeding, bedside manner, stock supplies, customer service, and practical skills needed by nurses are often not best taught at a university. These are practical skills, best taught I and many who have written on the subject believe via on-the-job training. No doubt there are skills nurses need that are rightly taught in a classroom. But these can be taught as nurses develop in their career, should they want to take on these extra duties and roles. Since making nursing a degree entry career we have seen reported drops in bedside manner and ward cleanliness. Of course we have, why would it come as a surprise to anyone that someone who has trained to become a highly qualified nurse is reluctant to undertake menial tasks. It may be entirely appropriate for some to enter nursing via a degree, and that route should be available, but why have we chosen to deny nursing as a career path to people who are not academically gifted? Yes, I want a nurse to know how to make an injection, but I care more about their basic care skills than their A Level or GCSE results.
Whilst technically you do not need a degree to become a Police Officer, you do either need a degree or to undertake the completion of the ‘Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship’ which is described as a professional degree-level apprenticeship. Or in layman’s terms a degree. In 2020 official figure show police failed to solve a single burglary in half of neighbourhoods, and three quarters of all burglaries remain unsolved.
Of the 30,265 Police Officers in the Met Police in 2021, 22,753 failed to make a single arrest. We used to recruit many of our police from armed forces, we used to value police with local knowledge. Now we have degree educated police more interested in policing Facebook and Twitter than the streets.
“let’s value Police with the skills of a thief-taker more highly than their ability to recite Latin, list the causes of the Franco Prussian war or tell you about their gender studies degree”
In June the National Police Chiefs’ Council confirmed that police will now attend the scene of every home burglary. How was this ever not the case? You must have gone to university to think something so stupid as not attending every burglary was ever acceptable. Yes, have a route into the police for graduates, but let’s also have a route in for people who can handle a rough situation, who know their community, who can deal with people. Let’s once again let’s value Police with the skills of a thief-taker more highly than their ability to recite Latin, list the causes of the Franco Prussian war or tell you about their gender studies degree. We can reduce the number of students, which would allow greater subsidy for university and other forms of education by removing the requirement for degrees for many careers.
There are other ways we can improve universities in this country. The Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman used to list the Four Different Ways To Spend Money. These were:
You can spend your own money on yourself – in which case you are careful what you spend and what you spend it on.
You can spend your own money on someone else – much like a present. You are careful about how much you spend but maybe don’t worry as much about what you buy.
You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself – like being on expenses. You are careful to get good things for the money. But you’re not very worried about the price.
Finally, you can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else – you neither care about the cost or the value.
Funding a free university education for all is rather like the last of those choices. Someone, somewhere in Whitehall takes someone else’s (the taxpayers’) money and provides a service to someone else (the student). Whilst imperfect the current system does mean via a deferred payment, students will pick the best education for them, and presumably seek the best value for money with the degree they undertake. Indeed, the increasing use of apprenticeships and stabilisation of student numbers suggest many are choosing these as the best value route for themselves.
“No doubt the years at university are a great time for many, and a great life experience. But that is no reason to expect others to pay for it”
Now I do want to briefly address the reason some people believe a University Education should be free and widely available. This is that, some believe, it to be some sort of rite of passage. No doubt the years at university are a great time for many, and a great life experience. But that is no reason to expect others to pay for it. Although I could be persuaded on this. I, myself am away on holiday soon, and I hope it will be a great trip. It has certainly cost the earth. If anyone of you here is committed to the idea that we should all help fund other’s opportunities to learn and grow, I am in no way adverse to taking your money to help fund my trip. Please just deposit funds here at the front, during the interval.
If a University Education were to be free for all UK citizens, what limits would be imposed? Could for instance anyone go to university? Would you need a minimum qualification? Could you study any subject? Would you be able to keep doing new courses? I mean, why ever work if you can just stay at Uni?
If the answer to any of these is no, who chooses? Or are we saying the motion is really “A University Education of my specification, should be free for all UK citizens.”? If you impose a minimum level of qualifications once again you tax, then disadvantage, those who can least afford it and you punish the neuro divergent. Free university education would require the willingness of hardworking taxpayers to fund increasingly obscure courses for 30-year-olds who are reluctant to leave academia. Imposing limits, means you create a university system for the few funded by the many.
“If people want degrees and then follow these career paths, fine, good for them, but let’s not burden everyone with the costs”
We already have a problem of what’s known as elite overproduction, a condition which describes a society which is producing too many potential elite members relative to its ability to absorb them. Research suggests 36 per cent of graduates are overqualified for the jobs they currently hold. 3 per cent of post office clerks had a degree in 1992, compared to 30 per cent now, in a job that really hasn’t changed much in that time. In 1992, 3 percent of bar staff, and 2 per cent of security guards had degrees, now those numbers are 19 and 24 per cent respectively. There is nothing wrong with having a degree and working in any of these careers. But are you really saying society needs to pay for degree quality bar staff, rather than say putting them onto an apprenticeship or giving them other on the job training. If people want degrees and then follow these career paths, fine, good for them, but let’s not burden everyone with the costs.
A paid for education does create opportunities to encourage people into qualifications which we as a nation want or need. We could for instance direct students through subsidies that would, I believe, have widespread support. As a nation we don’t educate enough doctors, let’s do that, let’s make the qualifications high to get onto the course, but reduce the costs to encourage more to join. We don’t have enough engineers, or more generally enough people learning STEM subjects, so let’s subsidise them. These are hard subjects that provide great jobs. We don’t need to make the education free, but we could make it cheaper than more popular subjects that provide less societal benefit.
“the necessary restriction needed to fund a so-called free education imposes a tax on all for the benefit of a small often already privileged minority”
The motion is that a ‘University Education should be free for all UK citizens’. No one here believes this, we know an education is not free. The motion proposes someone else pays for the education. As we have discussed someone else paying for someone else’s’ education can lead to some perverse outcomes. But mostly the necessary restriction needed to fund a so-called free education imposes a tax on all for the benefit of a small often already privileged minority. The reduction will reduce opportunities for those who most need them.
Let’s make education pay, make it good value, and make it available to all who benefit the most, which is why I ask you to oppose this motion.
Summary
I’ve already spoken about how fees for UK Universities, haven’t stopped UK students from all backgrounds studying here. But let’s look at international students. They pay on average £22,000 per annum to attend a UK university. The number of international students rose from 450,000 in 2016 to over 600,000 today. The top 10 list of countries sending students to the UK includes, China, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Malaysia, France, Italy, and Spain. All of which have a lower GDP per capita than the UK. Don’t tell me student fees put people off studying in UK Universities or make universities only a place for the rich. It may feel like that’s the case, but it simply isn’t born out by the facts.
“It won’t be the pupils of private schools missing out when there are fewer university places, they will know how to still get into their academy of choice”
If people from all over the world think that paying £66k for 3-year UK degree is the right choice for them, why shouldn’t our students continue to pay £27k rather than move that cost onto others. Taxpayers already fund Higher Education in this country to the tune of £4.5 billion, moving more burden to taxpayers will mean we need to constrain costs and restrict supply. It won’t be the pupils of private schools missing out when there are fewer university places, they will know how to still get into their academy of choice. It will mean, fewer places for pupils from the bog-standard comprehensives, and from the families not used to sending their children off to Uni.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would ask you to support the best outcomes, rather than the best intentions and oppose this motion.
In the UK we’ve faced a wet summer, whilst we’ve been told Europe burns. Are we being told the truth? Are these problems man-made or due to climate change? If climate change, what if anything should we do about it?
“the British summer has never been a given: predictably unpredictable. Nothing this year we haven’t seen in living memory”
The following represents my own, reasonably humble opinion: all or even part of it not necessarily coincident with that of Reform UK.
We’ve certainly had a topsy-turvy summer in Blighty, and there were heatwaves in southern Europe while we were almost shivering and damp here. But the British summer has never been a given: predictably unpredictable. Nothing this year we haven’t seen in living memory, following a day or two of just about record highs last year.
First let me admit to a very limited knowledge and understanding of climatology. On the other hand, 35 years in aviation and a general interest in natural sciences have led me to a close interest and reasonable understanding of weather, and its short-term forecasting.
” I rarely give heed to bold predictions – eagerly seized on by journalists – of weather extremes 10 or 14 days in advance. As for what sort of weather we can expect in the next month or three: forget it!”
Weather forecasting has been largely computerised and enables meteorologists to predict most types of weather phenomena up to 4 or 5 days ahead with remarkable accuracy. Beyond that period, reliability rapidly declines, and I rarely give heed to bold predictions – eagerly seized on by journalists – of weather extremes 10 or 14 days in advance. As for what sort of weather we can expect in the next month or three: forget it!
That doesn’t mean, of course, that the climatologists’ gloomy analyses of long-term climate-change trends can simply be dismissed, nor that human activity has no effect on world climate. But it seems to me that, to take one example, they are not always comparing like with like in their historic graphs of temperature. For example, many rural thermometric sites in the 19th century have since been surrounded by buildings. Temperature readings are bound to be generally higher. In one sense, that is man-made climate change! Can and is due allowance made for that?
They claim that extreme weather events, including fatalities, are and will continue to be on the increase. But, in this age of mass, almost instant worldwide communication, events that would have remained unrecorded – or at least overlooked internationally, even 50 years ago – are on our TV screens within 24 hours. And the 24-hour news media make a big proportion of their living by reporting them in the greatest detail.
“There are doubts on the impartiality of a climate science that is funded by governments and international organisations (using your taxes and mine)”
There are doubts on the impartiality of a climate science that is funded by governments and international organisations (using your taxes and mine) pursuing a globalist agenda that would impose swingeing restrictions on the freedoms, lifestyles and even the diet of ordinary citizens, while its leaders’ swan around in private jets from conference to conference with their entourages. In the UK, to take one example, present government policy would ban the production of fossil fuel-powered cars in just over six years’ time, while the electric alternatives remain problematical, to say the least.
Finally, there is also a shrillness in the pronouncements of the self-styled climate-emergency lobby, and an unwillingness to engage in calm debate. Climate-change sceptics are branded as climate-change “deniers”, a term that implies bigotry. An old adage springs to mind: “methinks thou doth protest too much…”
Simon Richards, former CEO of The Freedom Association
“Let’s be honest – most of us don’t even know for sure how tomorrow’s weather will turn out.
Consequently, I prefer to hedge my bets about climate change”
Unlike so many politicians who pontificate about climate change with all the certainty of meteorological professors who have also been granted forward climatic vision for the next century or two, I claim no such expertise. Let’s be honest – most of us don’t even know for sure how tomorrow’s weather will turn out.
Consequently, I prefer to hedge my bets about climate change. My guess is that it is mostly down to natural causes, but that it makes sense to treat the planet and the atmosphere with care and respect. For that reason, I reckon it makes sense to develop renewable energy and nuclear energy. But it is also sensible to try to reduce our energy dependence on what are often hostile overseas powers, so I also favour using all domestic energy sources, including shale oil, coal, oil, natural gas etc. as necessary.
“As usual, the Left is using fear to drive an expansion of state control and interference in people’s lives.”
As usual, the Left is using fear to drive an expansion of state control and interference in people’s lives. Excessive adoption of the Net Zero agenda in the UK must not be allowed to impoverish us, whilst Communist China and others make a mockery of our self-flagellation.
In the UK we’ve faced a wet summer, whilst we’ve been told Europe burns. Are we being told the truth? Are these problems man-made or due to climate change? If climate change, what if anything should we do about it?
“Parts of Europe may have had an uncommonly hot summer, but to frame that as part of a climate ‘emergency’ is completely disingenuous”
As ever, the narrative we are fed from politicians and the mainstream media consists of a load of half-truths presented in a way which is designed to mislead. Parts of Europe may have had an uncommonly hot summer, but to frame that as part of a climate ‘emergency’ is completely disingenuous, and to attribute it to the wildfires is spurious in the extreme.
Everyone knows that the ignition point of paper is 451 degrees Fahrenheit. For wood, grass and all similar substances, it is generally between 450 and 500 degrees, so there is no way a temperature of 120 degrees – the hottest ever recorded in Europe – can cause the spontaneous combustion of grassland or scrub. In all cases, the wildfires could not have been started without the heat being magnified in some way or, as is more likely, an external heat source being applied. In short, the wildfires will have been started by human activity, deliberately or by accident, and not as a result of climate change.
Dry grass obviously makes the fires easier to spread, but that is caused more by prolonged dry spells than a few days of high temperatures, and is a normal characteristic of the summer climate which doesn’t usually result in a mass panic. Most, if not all, of the fires could have been avoided if people used their brains and took appropriate care.
“Croydon’s name means ‘Valley of the Crocus’, commemorating its Roman use as a centre for saffron production. If the temperature gets warm enough, we could revive that industry”
The climate, of course, is permanently in a state of flux, and will warm up and cool down over periods of centuries as it always does. The only thing for us to do as adapt to it, as humans in times past did by wearing fur and hides to keep the cold out, or taking advantage of the warm summers to grow apricots, musk melons and figs, as we did in Tudor times. As friends of the Croydon Constitutionalists will know, Croydon’s name means ‘Valley of the Crocus’, commemorating its Roman use as a centre for saffron production. If the temperature gets warm enough, we could revive that industry.
“We do not need to take heed of the agenda-driven zealots who tell us we should all become miserable vegans and have our energy consumption monitored”
Post-Industrial Revolution, the scope for mankind to overcome and adapt to obstacles has never been greater. There will always be options, and it is up for us to try them, reject them or improve them as we see fit. We do not need to take heed of the agenda-driven zealots who tell us we should all become miserable vegans and have our energy consumption monitored. As a case in point, a carbon-neutral synthetic fuel has recently been developed for internal combustion engines – no thanks to politicians, prophets of doom and their electric-car fixation – and works interchangeably with petrol, making the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel vehicles look pretty stupid.
Scott Neville, Hampshire Independents
“The south of Europe has always been hot, if the Mediterranean Sea were to be dammed in the straits of Gibraltar it would dry up as more water evaporates out of the sea than flows into it from the rivers of Europe/Africa”
There is a lot of things to unpack there. The first thing to remember is that the media is not there to tell you the facts, they are there to sell you the news, so there is always going to be some blurring of the truth to make it more marketable. So has the UK summer been wet…. yes, but it’s not been wet by biblical proportions and the UK has a long history of rubbish weather and it raining more than we want, ok sure its rained a lot more than we would want, but I don’t think this is anything that exceptional. I don’t really think there is anything special about the weather in the UK other than “it’s been a bit wetter than usual”.
Europe is a little different, so you ask, “are these problems man-made or due to climate change?” I would say, yes and yes. The south of Europe has always been hot, if the Mediterranean Sea were to be dammed in the straits of Gibraltar it would dry up as more water evaporates out of the sea than flows into it from the rivers of Europe/Africa. Given the longest river in the world connects to it, that tells you a LOT of water evaporates. So, it’s pretty hot there and always has been. So, the man-made bit. Historically a lot of farming has been conducted by small scale family farms in the south of Europe, they have had small fields which are well suited to the hilly terrain. This kind of landscape is far less suited to large scale farming. Now the EU really hates small scale farmers, they would much rather have big industrial farmers. Over the years a lot of these small-scale farmers have been put out of business and the big industrial ones have taken over some of the land. This is a critical change, because the fires while in part might be caused by slightly hotter temperatures, they are mostly caused by an abundance of fuel on the ground in these now abandoned fields.
“which makes no sense when you consider the religious cult of “The Science” where is totally acceptable to abuse people in the street for contradicting the first slightly official looking thing you found on Google”
We have seen this many times in other countries like Australia where the indigenous people would burn the land regularly to remove the excess fuel. For some reason we hold a certain arrogance over such things now, where our leaders have decided these people don’t know what they are doing because their actions have not been derived through the scientific method (which makes no sense when you consider the religious cult of “The Science” where is totally acceptable to abuse people in the street for contradicting the first slightly official looking thing you found on Google and academics like Peter Boghossian have shown deep flaws in the peer review process in some fields).
Now, I am all for the scientific method, both my degrees (BSc – Hons – 1st & MSc – Distinction) are in Science, so I am well signed up to the Scientific method (I don’t like to brag about my education, because you should judge me on the quality of my research / arguments / findings, but it was more to show that I am not some fly-by-night that looked up the definition of science yesterday, I have devoted my life to it). I really don’t agree with the modern fad of “there are other ways of knowing” and “my truth”, there is only the truth and the only way of knowing for sure is empirical evidence which is falsifiable. However, these old cultures and people have survived for a reason, so while burning the land or small-scale farming might be done to appease some god (which I don’t accept), there might be some valid practical reason for these practices evolving. Another example might be the rules in religious texts, like thou shalt not kill, I don’t believe any god said that (because I don’t believe they exist), but I do think that’s a pretty sensible rule to produce a functioning society, i.e. the reasoning is wrong, but the outcome is sound. One obvious outcome is that these practices produce a stable environment from which humans can flourish. While I would always doubt the reasoning, I am very open to the idea that there is good reason for doing these things and sure we can change what we do, that’s fine, but let’s be pretty sure about the consequences before doing that. In essence the fires in Europe are very much man made.
Climate change, yes the climate is changing, and yes its getting hotter, that is not going to help, one thing I have learned is that Earth has a lot of reinforcing feedback loops which is counterintuitive. For example, in an ice age its colder, colder means more snow, snow is very good at reflecting heat back into space, therefore it gets colder. The same could be true here, more heat, stuff burns more easily therefore more heat. It’s interesting that the planet does always appear to have some method of correcting itself (although we don’t really understand why, and life does play a part in that so past performance is not a guide to future returns blah blah).
“Firstly, get the plastic junk out of the seas. The seas are one of the most important regulators of our climate, they are the origins of all live on earth and produce vast quantities of food, why, why, why, are we ok with all this plastic being dumped in there?”
In terms of climate change, I think there are some important things we can (and should do as quickly as possible). Firstly, get the plastic junk out of the seas. The seas are one of the most important regulators of our climate, they are the origins of all live on earth and produce vast quantities of food, why, why, why, are we ok with all this plastic being dumped in there? We need to get all that plastic junk out and stop putting any more of it in (which includes things like shipping recycling to China where it can fall off the sides of boats). We should think a bit more carefully about what we eat too. All the arguments I see make absolutely no sense, the better thing for the climate is to eat avocados shipped in from South America rather than meat from a farm I could walk to. What? This makes no sense. We should try to eat more locally grown produce as its generally better for us, uses less energy and animals have a higher welfare standard. Now I realize that not everyone can afford that, so I don’t complain about people buying cheap food I know plenty of people can’t afford anything else, but those that can afford, in my view should (although I have no right to force them).
The final thing I think we should all do is use less energy, not in some “you will own nothing and be happy” way, but because it just makes sense, if you don’t need the lights on, turn them off, it will save you some money. Insulated homes are cheaper to heat. We are going to have a few years with power cuts over winter thanks to our inept government not planning our energy security properly and building new power plants (Nick Clegg, “it will take a decade to build a new nuclear power plant, so we won’t do that” in 2010…. well would have been pretty handy now in 2023). Using as little energy as possible will help reduce your own costs and help mitigate the supply problems. Further to this the energy we have on earth is finite and controlled by the Sun (other than nuclear, though that’s still finite), at some point in our distance future humans will need to leave Earth and find a new home, I imagine that will need quite a lot of energy, so let’s not squander it all now on lighting up the outside wall of our house at night.
