As you say, LSO, the climate scam defies all reason and logic - unless, like the indefatigable Polly of TCW, you look to see precisely who is profiting from the exercise. I quote her at length here because her message is devastating and shows just how deep-rooted the corruption and lying is. Here she is:
"Unfortunately few people know the awful story behind the UK’s climate laws and the corruption between senior politicians and George Soros who was the motivating force for the legislation leading to today’s energy disaster.
Tony Blair met with George Soros for private talks at the New York Plaza Hotel on April 10 1996 and later sold to Soros and his consortium extremely valuable British state assets in cut price sweetheart deals in 2000 and 2003 and provided the laws and policies Soros desired. Including the Climate Change Act 2008.
New Lab Environment Minister 2006-2007 David Miliband was the architect of the Climate Change Act 2008 which Soros wanted and David Miliband was subsequently awarded the highly lucrative CEO position in a New York charity supported with “hefty donations” by Soros. Tony Blair received many years of consultancy work from Soros worth $millions. David Cameron who strongly supported the Climate Change Act and whose Conservative Party mainly voted for it, subsequently received a directorship of a Soros financed organization.
The first chairman of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Adair Turner, appointed by Soros’ friend Gordon Brown was in an “alliance” with Soros according to the Daily Telegraph and was later appointed chairman of Soros’ Institute for New Economic Thinking and subsequently chairman of the Energy Transitions Commission. This means that George Soros’ ally, Lord Adair Turner, has been managing the green energy demands of Soros’ Climate Change Act since 2008 except for an interval when he worked personally for Soros. This is exactly what one would expect in the circumstances. Lord Turner was given a peerage by Soros’ close friend Tony Blair in 2005 just in time to prepare the House of Lords to approve the Climate Change Act which Soros wanted. Therefore, Lord Turner was the obvious choice to be chairman of the Climate Change Committee from 2008.
David Miliband, who arranged the Climate Change Act, recruited Bryony Worthington from Friends of the Earth to help write the legislation. Bryony Worthington was running the Friends of the Earth ‘Big Ask’ campaign which was to limit carbon output by law. Friends of the Earth are part financed by George Soros through Open Society and Bryony Worthington was given a peerage as Baroness Worthington and appointed to the House of Lords by George Soros’ close friend David Cameron.
Steven Fries, who is a current member of the Climate Change Committee, is a senior fellow of Soros’ Institute for New Economic Thinking. Piers Forster, current acting chair of the Climate Change Committee, is an ”agenda setter” at the World Economic Forum with George Soros. The CEO of the Climate Change Committee, Christopher Stark, benefits from a gravy train pay grade of $225,000 pa and previously worked for Soros’ close friend Gordon Brown who was publicly congratulated by Soros at the G20 in 2009 for saving the world financial system with the words ”this was Gordon Brown’s finest hour”. Christopher Stark was appointed CEO of Gordon Brown’s Carbon Trust from April 30 2024. Other members of the Climate Change Committee also have Soros connections.
George Soros, through his foundation Open Society, went on to part finance the Conservative think tank Bright Blue which recommended Legal Net Zero 2019 to Theresa May who enthusiastically implemented the measure exactly as Soros desired.
Soon afterwards, Theresa May started a very long series of one hour free to attend $125,000 speeches booked through the same Washington speakers agency favored by Soros’ agent and proxy Tony Blair.
Shortly after Lord Stern published his report ‘Economics of Climate Change’ in 2006 he travelled around with George Soros giving talks about Oil Wars and Climate Change and demanding $100billion, rising to $500billion, from Western governments to solve problems they’d just invented. Who was to control what happened to that money? None other than George Soros through the IPCC.
Taking everything together, it’s very easy to see what has been going on here which is certain key individuals such as Tony Blair and David Miliband being on billion dollar green investor George Soros’ payroll.
No wonder John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May avoided writing about George Soros in their memoirs despite being very closely connected to him. Obviously because they didn’t want to be found out."
Yes no-one. This is clearly a money train. Taking resources from the population and handing it to corporations, NGO and other vested interests. I think of climate change like a problem they turned into a crisis, and then transformed into a war. It has handed governments many of the same emergency powers they would have in a war and is sold as an existential threat.
No wonder they rail so much against anyone who even hints at questioning the train or derailing the money supply.
I’d pay more not to hear her make a speech. Still working my way slowly through Tim Shipman’s No Way Out about the Brexit ‘negotiations’. May does not come out of it well.
She comes out of nothing well. With the benefit of hindsight, she should have been ejected from the Tories for her "Nasty Party" comments. The same hindsight unfortunately makes me realise that most of the powerful Tories at that time (2002?) agreed with her. For instance there was a good piece in the Critic about a year ago about the team around that time which was vetting potential PPCs and inflicting Diversity Hires on the party, even though Gove (who was part of the team) openly admitted many of them wouldn't have been recruited if they'd been white men.
I still can’t hate her though. I feel she was genuinely motivated by a desire to ‘do the right thing’. Even as I wholeheartedly believe she was doing the wrong thing. Maybe it’s that she clearly did what she did out of a sense of duty, rather than out of self interest. That really comes across in the book.
But no. The Brexit debacle was a disaster. UK starting off as a supplicant, and going downhill from there. The whole thing seems pointless now. Though I would still vote to leave in a heartbeat.
Very witty, LSO! I sit here looking out of the window at the green fields that, only yesterday, the Met Office forecast would be knee deep in snow. They lecture us about half degrees of warming on a global scale by 2100, yet can't tell what the weather will do later today. It doesn't help that 80% of the weather stations in this country overstate temperature by 2 to 5 degrees Celsius, or that the Met Office admit making up a third of the readings, or that the US is even worse, and the rest of the world doesn't bother at all. So much for rising temperatures.
Lord Frost said in the House of Lords that the real cost per Mwh of renewables as per NESO is not £44, but nearer £150. The first floating wind turbine is costing over £500 per Mwh. NESO also confirmed that we will need the entirety of our gas fired power stations as backup, even though half are about defunct, and nobody will want to maintain old kit, which doesn't enjoy being turned on and off, with an unreliable income stream.
At COP 28, the emissions of 9 delegates travelling by private jet exceeded the total emissions of 40 Britons for a full year. We are about to spend £22 billion on carbon capture, unproven technology that, even if it works, will sequester just 2.5% of our 1% of global emissions. Meanwhile China, despite its huge renewable generation (it has little coal and no oil, nothing to do with climate change), still increased its fossil fuel use by 1.5% last year, and well over 80% of global energy consumption was fossil fuels.
Thanks Jeremy. A thoroughly depressing summary. Just talking to my friend about all this. It’s pretty clear that with climate change, Net Zero, the farmers and the rest, their stated agenda is very different from their real agenda. That’s not a conspiracy theory, it has to be the truth when people like you and I can see the obvious futility of their policies. And yet they persevere.
Another excellent piece LSO. While the outlook here in the UK looks bleak I hope we can be optimistic for two reasons. First, as you say, Starmer and Milliband are looking increasingly isolated on the international stage and the time may come when they are looking so outlandish that there will have to be a change of direction. Secondly, maybe, just maybe, DJT will live up to the expectations of the people who voted him back in and we in the UK will benefit from the well established principle that what happens first in the USA then happens here.
I hope you are right Bill. Although offered the choice between allying himself with the unsuccessful people who are driving the failing EU into the wall, or the most vibrant and successful economy on earth, it’s clear which way Starmer and co will jump.
Dale Vince's health warnings on bacon are not quite as bad as his proclaimed support for Hamas. That said these warning might conceivably cause Ed Miliband to end up two rashers short of a sandwich - even he he isn't that bothered about Vince's Hamas comments. There's your choice - bacon or ham(as).
Another great piece, LSO! I don’t think the aim is reducing carbon, if it was, we’d be building SMR’s and switching to hybrid/REX cars in a phased way. The real progressive agenda is de-growth.
Absolutely P. I’m al for sustainability. So why doesn’t our government push hybrids as you say. Long range while allowing time for the development of better EV technology.And SMRs are a no brainier, instead they are dumping what we’ve learned (at some times great cost) about nuclear and want to throw billions at Hydrogen instead. The stated aims are clearly at odds with the mandated ‘solutions’.
Why do you believe the progressive agenda is de-growth, Mr Wilson? Do you think that climate change is not happening? Or do you think we should just ignore it?
Firstly to address your question on my view regarding climate change. Yes, it is happening. Yes, human activity has an impact on this. So yes, we should look to reduce the impact. The main reason I believe the objective of the progressive elite is de-growth, not de-carbonising our emissions is that their choice for a solution requires us to use less energy, not to meet demand with a clean alternative. This is stated fairly explicitly in the NESO report. That’s before you get into the actual viability of their proposed solution. As we’ve just had a demonstration of, there can be prolonged periods of low wind and little sunshine in Northern Europe. I suspect that as climate instability gets more pronounced, we will see more frequent/ longer spells of this. The current solution for intermittency is gas, not a real solution. The oft quoted alternative is batteries. The cost to hold close to 11 days of reserve power in batteries is currently prohibitive. The LCOE quoted figures for renewables does not include costs for alternatives during intermittent periods so distorts the actual cost. LFSCOE is an attempt to address this and shows that intermittent renewables are far from as cheap as presented. I don’t buy the batteries will be cheaper next year line, as firstly we’re talking about now and secondly that’s gambling that something will come riding to our rescue. Hence why I prefer SMRs. It’s established technology we can build now and will give us constant power. The same is true with cars. The range problem has not been solved. We don’t have the charging infrastructure (not seen a solution for my fellow citizens who live in flats and have to park on the street), and given my argument above, I’m sceptical that there will be sufficient grid power. It’s the choices they make that think they are not serious about solving climate change.
I'm back. (Spoilers) UCL won. Very good team. They will go far.
I’m not too familiar with the NESO report or the research that went into — so I am betraying my ignorance a little — but a quick scan of it tells me that:
— they are recommending investment in nuclear power (as you did).
— their predictions allow for substantial growth in energy requirements.
It may be that you disagree with some of their goals and strategies such as reducing carbon emissions from transport or their predictions regarding battery use or their reliance on future innovation, but I saw nothing at all to suggest that their motivation is anything but meeting the growing energy needs of the future. There was certainly nothing to suggest that they are shooting for de-growth. Perhaps we read different NESO reports.
A quick aside: I lived in California until recently. Charging points for electric vehicles are EVERYWHERE. Every employer, every gas station and every car park has charging points. The traffic jams driving into Mountain View consist overwhelmingly of electric vehicles. All of my friends with EVs have charging points in their homes. There’s no reason why we couldn’t or shouldn’t have the same thing over here. And, when EVs are finally self-driving, they’ll be able to nip off in the evening and charge themselves.
I’ve no problem with an ev future. I like them very much. But I believe people should be offered a choice. And the best choice will naturally be the most frequently chosen.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case with EVs. Unless there’s a big subsidy ie everyone else pays towards the cost of your car, no one seems to want them. They are super popular in very progressive areas, California, New York, some other areas. London. Etc. but elsewhere not so much.
That’s not my prejudice. It just seems to be the case. Also they’re not really cheaper. Even now before the government ramps up some form of new taxation to compensate itself for the lack of fuel duty (tax).
And the self driving ones, as I’ve said before, will never ever get approved. Someone has to sign that off. And when the first accident happens and the first kid is run over, they know they will be looking for someone to blame.
Nuclear. Self driving EVs. Jet boots. A future we are being denied.
The de growth thing doesn’t come from NESO. It comes from what environmental extremists, (now mainstream ) have been saying for years. You don’t need a car. You don’t need to fly. You don’t need so many clothes. You don’t need gadgets. You don’t need new things. You don’t need your economy to grow because growth equals consumption equals environmental harm. Before she decided to change to hating Israel it’s basically what Greta was saying for years. While Gove, Miliband and all nodded along like puppies.
There are certainly climate extremists who are anti-growth but I don't think they are anywhere near the mainstream. They are certainly nowhere near the mainstream of the Labour Party. We’ll have to put this on our “I Disagree” list, I think! Likewise, EVs and self-driving cars.
Waymo and other companies have had self-driving taxis in several cities for several years. The number of fatal accidents is in the single digits compared with 42,000 deaths in people-driven cars in 2022. They are taking longer to reach widespread adoption than people expected but it will come. For public and commercial traffic, the reduced costs alone will make it happen.
EVs will soon be cheaper too as battery technology gets cheaper.
Fair enough Ragged. I’m just listening to the climate people when they talk. Like Miliband they talk about a fantastical future which bears no relation to current technology/policies.
I can’t believe that anyone can listen to these people speak and believe their agenda for the future is ‘the same, but sustainable’. It clearly isn’t. But sure let’s park that one.
I like self driving cars. I don’t think they are especially dangerous at all. But our government is too timid to approve them. The UK following the lead of the anti technology EU will regulate them out of existence.
Hi Ragged, apologies for the late reply. The element in the NESO report I referring to is the stress they place on demand side flexibility through a price mechanism. I would read this as at peak times they cannot meet actual demand and will use price to effectively ration usage. On Nuclear, they showing a falling real value of Nuclear energy in the supply mix. Their proposals do concern me as they are expecting to use technologies for long duration energy storage that are right now in a development stage and no where near commercial viability. That said, it’s not NESO that I would say aim at de-growth. That to me comes from the politicians and activists, and while some explicitly discuss de-growth, I’m looking more at what they actually do and the effects those policies have. So for instance, if your policies result in high energy prices compared to your peers, this will negatively impact competitiveness and investment in industries and therefore growth. So as I said above, they seem to deliberately not take up workable solutions that would address de-carbonisation while maintaining growth.
The NESO report is interesting as while they say that this government’s objective is theoretically possible, I would say the subtext makes it clear it is what Sir Humphrey Appleby would describe as a “courageous decision, Minister”.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Mr Wilson. But I am glad you took the time to help me understand your position. I think I understand it now but I just disagree.
Thanks for the reminder about the 70s. We had coal fired central heating in our 1960s house but it wasn't very good and you needed to light the fire to run it. So nights and mornings were cold until the grate was cleaned out and the fire relit. And I well remember the ice on the inside of the single glazed windows. Not sure when we got gas - late 70s, early 80s? Made a huge difference. At least I remember how to live without lots of heating - youngsters will have to learn this.
I live in one of the windiest parts of the country, surrounded by wretched wind turbines designed as the solution to a non-existent problem and which haven't moved in days/weeks. Our government hates us and after 3 months has succeeded in offending the whole population, quite an achievement! What a dreadful bunch of numpties.
Yes. Those single glazed iron(?) framed windows. You don’t see them much these days. Except I just did, while walking past the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury. A classic design. But I expect the flats with their big windows are a nightmare to heat.
All this wasteful, virtue-signalling BS by the UK State will only stop if the money is cut off. But the majority are dependent on the State in one way or another, so they have no incentive to vote for a smaller one until they really feel the disadvantage. It’s going to take a revolt by the overburdened, tax-paying minority. The top 10% earn £60k minimum - £67k on average - and pay 60% of all income tax. But there are only about 1.6m of them. You see the problem?
Absolutely Richard. It’s clearly unsustainable. I see the tractors are massing in Westminster right now. Maybe this is the beginning of the revolt you mention. They are a sympathetic bunch. And Starmer has already reached for the ‘we’re doing it to save the Blessed NHS’ lever, so I’m not sure where else he has to go.
Thanks for another excellent post, always guaranteed to warm the spirits and keep the blood pressure up. I wonder if Substack is getting crowded, there are a lot of good writers out there and you can’t keep up with everyone, or afford to if you keep signing up for another fiver a month - and then feel guilty if you cancel. I expect there’s been a lot of other news out there especially in the USA which makes news from the UK depressing and dull. I had hoped, or at least held out the hope, that Labour might be just really dull and shallow and follow the focus groups and look as if they were reining back the madder green and woke policies. Imagine how much political kudos they would have got if they had come out as pro nuclear and pro British farming and understood concerns about rapid social changes. But they didn’t have the base intelligence to do that which means that they are seriously ideological and will do untold damage before reality catches up.
The question then is whether we invest now in a diesel generator and do we risk social opprobrium if we run it during a power cut? What is the etiquette here, and do you upset all your neighbours or invite them in to charge their phones? Do you expect them to bring a bottle of wine, and how do you get them to go at 2 in the morning? There’s plenty of material for LSO to keep writing about.
Thanks Martin. Yes I think Substack has got a little crowded. But weirdly after I posted that, my recent post about the US election absolutely blew up. Putting on thousands and thousands of views in a few hours. So someone has obviously shared it on a big platform somewhere which is very kind.
Labour have turned out to be just as ideological as we feared. It’s not really any surprise. The idea that they’d had moved to the centre under Starmer was a bit of wishful thinking. You just had to listen to them and their bonkers ideas, which are now their bonkers policies, to know they had not changed a bit.
Yes. A jenny if you have the space. I’ve been thinking of buying a mega battery charger thing. So I can charge everyone’s phones and run their computers. Which is what my family really cares about. Also. Not sure a jenny in central London would go down very well with the neighbours. Oh and it would get nicked after about ten minutes too!
Thanks for persisting and good to know the fan base will grow. I know, I expected little from Labour but there was a lingering hope that taking advice from Blair and with the civil service on board, they might tack - or be seen to tack - towards a superficial centrist view. Tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration - but that hope lasted about three seconds. Now it’s downhill all the way for four years.
Great stuff, Mr LSO. As usual I agree with most of what you say.
I remember back in the seventies when we moved into our first council house with central heating. It was lovely! I used to lie next to the vents to enjoy the blasts of hot air. We don't get to enjoy that so much now because my house is still warm enough in November without putting the heating on. I blame those pesky regulations about building climate friendly homes. Saves us a fortune in heating bills though!
PS. I had crushed beetles with chilli when I was trekking through the Burmese jungle in my misspent youth. Delicious! I still love my ribeye steak and my rack of lamb though but they are an occasional treat now instead of a daily meal. Pasta and soups are delicious too and are better for my waistline.
Like many ideas related to climate change, there are sensible steps we can take without banning All The Good Things. Burning coal is bad. Banning plastic straws — doesn't make much difference and pisses everyone off.
I like the way that Bristol is closing many neighbourhoods to cars so that children can play in the street like we used to in the old days. Now we just need to fix the public transport system so that not everyone needs to have a car — the way it used to be when I was young.
Over the past 50+ years. The highest life expectancy in the UK has been London and the South East.
People on average live up to 10yrs longer in London than they do up North or in Wales. That has always been the case since I have been on the planet.
London and the Southeast has more gas boilers, more congestion, more traffic jams, more cars, more delivery vans, more motorcycles, more buses, more taxis, more mopeds, more trains more airports, more planes taking off and circling overhead in landing waiting patterns than anywhere else in the country.
Stanstead airport, Luton airport, Heathrow airport Gatwick airport, Biggin hill airport, City airport to name but a few in this surrounding this area.
The caring London Mayor Mr Khan is worried about what poor Londoners breathe in. Cynics say his ulez and congestion charge is a money making pyramid scheme scam. A golden money tree.
He is worried about your lungs unless of course you give him 12 quid in which case its f#ck your lungs.
But what about poor londoners breathing this toxic filthy black air into their lungs?? If the price is right... f#ck em.. chug away! Thats what happens right?
So a farmer breathing in clean air all his life in Scotland or Cumbria or West and Mid Wales will die much sooner. Children playing in a village school in Wales are going to live the longest right? Its obvious... isnt it?
The life expectancy was true in the 70's and is still true now.
Its almost as if our climate pollution evangalists are wrong isnt it?
If we bother too look at health and life expectancy?
Aaah, but economics are very different some will say pointing at London and the South East being more affluent?
Lets look at that. If this air is so toxic and bad for you then the people in London and the South East would die sooner? The farmer in the clean air of Wales or Scotland etc would outlive them by a mile.
Doesnt matter if you got 50 quid in the bank or 50 million quid. If that air is so bad then when you breathe it in your fooked!
A millionaire marathon runner living in london still has that toxic air to breathe. The rural Welsh or Scottish doesnt.
(They probably eat less fast food too than City folk too)
The air may have more pollutents in London and the South East, but the argument about how dangerous that air actually is.
Now lets look at the climate. The earth has been warmer than this in its history and cooler.
The earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. Ww have roughly 80yrs of fairly reliable data. Much of that data is not global. Data before that was sporadic and totally unreliable. After all, 3/4 of the globe is water.
What was the temperature one mile down in the middle of the pacific ocean 300yrs ago? Nobody knows.
Leonard Nimoy catastrophing about the 2nd ice age coming in the most dramatic way possible..... didnt happen did it?
All the scientist agreed at the time, the footage is still on you tube... and all WRONG!
In the 80's they were at it again, global warming this time, London was going to be 2 foot underwater. All the Scientist agreed.
So convincing were they, that they convinced government to spend billions and build a giant barrier on the Thames to save poor London.
Remind me how many times it has been used now?.... oh thats right... NEVER!
All the scientists agreed... and all WRONG!
Then we had the hole in the Ozone layer, we had 2yrs to stop using cfc's or the hole would get so big and we would all choke...
Science was clear once again. The people doing the scaremongering on that occasion had obviously never looked at a globe of the earth.
These particular morons had never looked at the grain of sand size of the UK compared to the size of the earth. Or even compared to China, who still use them last time I looked.
Nah, climate is the new religion. The believers are followers just like religious followers. They are not going to let a little thing like facts get in the way of their belief system.
Politicians have found another golden nugget. Pay us more taxes and we will stop the sun shining.
I dont think there is any harm in having preventative measures, its good planning, I personally think they should work on the flood areas in places like Worcester too.
The problem I have with it was that it was built on yet another doomsday catastrophising lie.
Worcester for example, has had way more problems over the years and nobody in Westminster seems interested.
I really dont trust politicians😂 And I'm increasingly skeptical about Scientists these days.
I used to love science. But these group think money backed science theories has dirtied the good name of science, which is a shame.
Heres an economic policy that we want to pursue... now make the science fit
Exactly. Do you remember BBC 2 Horizon in the 80s and maybe 90s? ‘All scientists know that there’s nothing smaller than an atom. But is there?’ Type stuff. String theory. Relativity. All sorts of mind blowing ideas.
At least for a little me. Now ‘science’ is just a relentless scold, justifying why government should dictate our lifestyle choices. No thanks. That’s not science. It’s propaganda.
Go and find out something that will make a twelve year old me’s mind boggle. That’s your job.
Throughly enjoyed this article LSO, as well as being deliciously sarcastic and witty, poking fun at all the right (wrong) people the facts cited are all bang on the mark.
Oh I laughed out loud at this, you have a gift. I too remember the 70s and as a working class council estate kid they were bloody cold most of the time. Ice on the inside of the windows in winter. I swore when I had kids they would never suffer the poverty I did in childhood. Then along comes Minibrain and Stoma.
The climate has always changed, it always will and there is sod all we can do about it. Yes, we should be circumspect about how we use the precious resources on our planet. We shouldn't pollute it with our rubbish etc. But we need fossil fuels and will do for decades to come. We are too far north of the equator for solar farms to be viable. I despair. Not to mention the harm they do to our beautiful flora and fauna. And wind turbines or bird choppers as we call them. They really are a pair of utter morons.
Exactly this Toffeepud. It took generations for working class people like my mum and dad’s families to become middle class people with central heating and foreign holidays and the rest. Now Miliband and co seem to want to bring back wide scale deprivation, cold, and want, this time to feed their own ideological pretensions.
I genuinely can’t help myself from thinking that there is an element of spite in all this. The same as with the VAT on private schools thing. They simply can’t bear the idea of the lower orders doing better for themselves.
Yes. It’s just a bit of fun Jeremy. All the leftists are saying ‘You don’t understand. This is not how democracy works.’ Yes. We know thanks. It’s a troll numpties.
Also. How come they’re all ‘You lost. Get over it.’ Now? I can’t remember that being their attitude when they lost in 2016. Either time.🤣
We just got done with an election where zero (Tory) seats was a legit campaign goal and now Labour are making themselves so despised that they'll get the same treatment.
Wanting every party dead and gone just doesn't strike me as a sustainable situation.
Agreed Sathanas. And I’m less than impressed by Badenoch so far. She should be out front and centre on farmers and the Allison Pearson free speech story. Piling it on. Making a case. But barely a whimper. I’m beginning to wonder whether an insurgent party like Reform might have a chance after all.
As you say, LSO, the climate scam defies all reason and logic - unless, like the indefatigable Polly of TCW, you look to see precisely who is profiting from the exercise. I quote her at length here because her message is devastating and shows just how deep-rooted the corruption and lying is. Here she is:
"Unfortunately few people know the awful story behind the UK’s climate laws and the corruption between senior politicians and George Soros who was the motivating force for the legislation leading to today’s energy disaster.
Tony Blair met with George Soros for private talks at the New York Plaza Hotel on April 10 1996 and later sold to Soros and his consortium extremely valuable British state assets in cut price sweetheart deals in 2000 and 2003 and provided the laws and policies Soros desired. Including the Climate Change Act 2008.
New Lab Environment Minister 2006-2007 David Miliband was the architect of the Climate Change Act 2008 which Soros wanted and David Miliband was subsequently awarded the highly lucrative CEO position in a New York charity supported with “hefty donations” by Soros. Tony Blair received many years of consultancy work from Soros worth $millions. David Cameron who strongly supported the Climate Change Act and whose Conservative Party mainly voted for it, subsequently received a directorship of a Soros financed organization.
The first chairman of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Adair Turner, appointed by Soros’ friend Gordon Brown was in an “alliance” with Soros according to the Daily Telegraph and was later appointed chairman of Soros’ Institute for New Economic Thinking and subsequently chairman of the Energy Transitions Commission. This means that George Soros’ ally, Lord Adair Turner, has been managing the green energy demands of Soros’ Climate Change Act since 2008 except for an interval when he worked personally for Soros. This is exactly what one would expect in the circumstances. Lord Turner was given a peerage by Soros’ close friend Tony Blair in 2005 just in time to prepare the House of Lords to approve the Climate Change Act which Soros wanted. Therefore, Lord Turner was the obvious choice to be chairman of the Climate Change Committee from 2008.
David Miliband, who arranged the Climate Change Act, recruited Bryony Worthington from Friends of the Earth to help write the legislation. Bryony Worthington was running the Friends of the Earth ‘Big Ask’ campaign which was to limit carbon output by law. Friends of the Earth are part financed by George Soros through Open Society and Bryony Worthington was given a peerage as Baroness Worthington and appointed to the House of Lords by George Soros’ close friend David Cameron.
Steven Fries, who is a current member of the Climate Change Committee, is a senior fellow of Soros’ Institute for New Economic Thinking. Piers Forster, current acting chair of the Climate Change Committee, is an ”agenda setter” at the World Economic Forum with George Soros. The CEO of the Climate Change Committee, Christopher Stark, benefits from a gravy train pay grade of $225,000 pa and previously worked for Soros’ close friend Gordon Brown who was publicly congratulated by Soros at the G20 in 2009 for saving the world financial system with the words ”this was Gordon Brown’s finest hour”. Christopher Stark was appointed CEO of Gordon Brown’s Carbon Trust from April 30 2024. Other members of the Climate Change Committee also have Soros connections.
George Soros, through his foundation Open Society, went on to part finance the Conservative think tank Bright Blue which recommended Legal Net Zero 2019 to Theresa May who enthusiastically implemented the measure exactly as Soros desired.
Soon afterwards, Theresa May started a very long series of one hour free to attend $125,000 speeches booked through the same Washington speakers agency favored by Soros’ agent and proxy Tony Blair.
Shortly after Lord Stern published his report ‘Economics of Climate Change’ in 2006 he travelled around with George Soros giving talks about Oil Wars and Climate Change and demanding $100billion, rising to $500billion, from Western governments to solve problems they’d just invented. Who was to control what happened to that money? None other than George Soros through the IPCC.
Taking everything together, it’s very easy to see what has been going on here which is certain key individuals such as Tony Blair and David Miliband being on billion dollar green investor George Soros’ payroll.
No wonder John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May avoided writing about George Soros in their memoirs despite being very closely connected to him. Obviously because they didn’t want to be found out."
Yes no-one. This is clearly a money train. Taking resources from the population and handing it to corporations, NGO and other vested interests. I think of climate change like a problem they turned into a crisis, and then transformed into a war. It has handed governments many of the same emergency powers they would have in a war and is sold as an existential threat.
No wonder they rail so much against anyone who even hints at questioning the train or derailing the money supply.
I wondered why anyone would pay to listen to Theresa May make a speech so the rationale you provide makes a certain amount of sense.
I’d pay more not to hear her make a speech. Still working my way slowly through Tim Shipman’s No Way Out about the Brexit ‘negotiations’. May does not come out of it well.
She comes out of nothing well. With the benefit of hindsight, she should have been ejected from the Tories for her "Nasty Party" comments. The same hindsight unfortunately makes me realise that most of the powerful Tories at that time (2002?) agreed with her. For instance there was a good piece in the Critic about a year ago about the team around that time which was vetting potential PPCs and inflicting Diversity Hires on the party, even though Gove (who was part of the team) openly admitted many of them wouldn't have been recruited if they'd been white men.
I still can’t hate her though. I feel she was genuinely motivated by a desire to ‘do the right thing’. Even as I wholeheartedly believe she was doing the wrong thing. Maybe it’s that she clearly did what she did out of a sense of duty, rather than out of self interest. That really comes across in the book.
But no. The Brexit debacle was a disaster. UK starting off as a supplicant, and going downhill from there. The whole thing seems pointless now. Though I would still vote to leave in a heartbeat.
Very witty, LSO! I sit here looking out of the window at the green fields that, only yesterday, the Met Office forecast would be knee deep in snow. They lecture us about half degrees of warming on a global scale by 2100, yet can't tell what the weather will do later today. It doesn't help that 80% of the weather stations in this country overstate temperature by 2 to 5 degrees Celsius, or that the Met Office admit making up a third of the readings, or that the US is even worse, and the rest of the world doesn't bother at all. So much for rising temperatures.
Lord Frost said in the House of Lords that the real cost per Mwh of renewables as per NESO is not £44, but nearer £150. The first floating wind turbine is costing over £500 per Mwh. NESO also confirmed that we will need the entirety of our gas fired power stations as backup, even though half are about defunct, and nobody will want to maintain old kit, which doesn't enjoy being turned on and off, with an unreliable income stream.
At COP 28, the emissions of 9 delegates travelling by private jet exceeded the total emissions of 40 Britons for a full year. We are about to spend £22 billion on carbon capture, unproven technology that, even if it works, will sequester just 2.5% of our 1% of global emissions. Meanwhile China, despite its huge renewable generation (it has little coal and no oil, nothing to do with climate change), still increased its fossil fuel use by 1.5% last year, and well over 80% of global energy consumption was fossil fuels.
Thanks Jeremy. A thoroughly depressing summary. Just talking to my friend about all this. It’s pretty clear that with climate change, Net Zero, the farmers and the rest, their stated agenda is very different from their real agenda. That’s not a conspiracy theory, it has to be the truth when people like you and I can see the obvious futility of their policies. And yet they persevere.
Another excellent piece LSO. While the outlook here in the UK looks bleak I hope we can be optimistic for two reasons. First, as you say, Starmer and Milliband are looking increasingly isolated on the international stage and the time may come when they are looking so outlandish that there will have to be a change of direction. Secondly, maybe, just maybe, DJT will live up to the expectations of the people who voted him back in and we in the UK will benefit from the well established principle that what happens first in the USA then happens here.
I hope you are right Bill. Although offered the choice between allying himself with the unsuccessful people who are driving the failing EU into the wall, or the most vibrant and successful economy on earth, it’s clear which way Starmer and co will jump.
Dale Vince's health warnings on bacon are not quite as bad as his proclaimed support for Hamas. That said these warning might conceivably cause Ed Miliband to end up two rashers short of a sandwich - even he he isn't that bothered about Vince's Hamas comments. There's your choice - bacon or ham(as).
🤣
Another great piece, LSO! I don’t think the aim is reducing carbon, if it was, we’d be building SMR’s and switching to hybrid/REX cars in a phased way. The real progressive agenda is de-growth.
Absolutely P. I’m al for sustainability. So why doesn’t our government push hybrids as you say. Long range while allowing time for the development of better EV technology.And SMRs are a no brainier, instead they are dumping what we’ve learned (at some times great cost) about nuclear and want to throw billions at Hydrogen instead. The stated aims are clearly at odds with the mandated ‘solutions’.
I know you’ve addressed this to P Ragged. And he will have his own answer. But
‘Why do you believe the progressive agenda is de-growth’
Because they tell us it is. So we should maybe take them at their word.
Why do you believe the progressive agenda is de-growth, Mr Wilson? Do you think that climate change is not happening? Or do you think we should just ignore it?
Firstly to address your question on my view regarding climate change. Yes, it is happening. Yes, human activity has an impact on this. So yes, we should look to reduce the impact. The main reason I believe the objective of the progressive elite is de-growth, not de-carbonising our emissions is that their choice for a solution requires us to use less energy, not to meet demand with a clean alternative. This is stated fairly explicitly in the NESO report. That’s before you get into the actual viability of their proposed solution. As we’ve just had a demonstration of, there can be prolonged periods of low wind and little sunshine in Northern Europe. I suspect that as climate instability gets more pronounced, we will see more frequent/ longer spells of this. The current solution for intermittency is gas, not a real solution. The oft quoted alternative is batteries. The cost to hold close to 11 days of reserve power in batteries is currently prohibitive. The LCOE quoted figures for renewables does not include costs for alternatives during intermittent periods so distorts the actual cost. LFSCOE is an attempt to address this and shows that intermittent renewables are far from as cheap as presented. I don’t buy the batteries will be cheaper next year line, as firstly we’re talking about now and secondly that’s gambling that something will come riding to our rescue. Hence why I prefer SMRs. It’s established technology we can build now and will give us constant power. The same is true with cars. The range problem has not been solved. We don’t have the charging infrastructure (not seen a solution for my fellow citizens who live in flats and have to park on the street), and given my argument above, I’m sceptical that there will be sufficient grid power. It’s the choices they make that think they are not serious about solving climate change.
I'm back. (Spoilers) UCL won. Very good team. They will go far.
I’m not too familiar with the NESO report or the research that went into — so I am betraying my ignorance a little — but a quick scan of it tells me that:
— they are recommending investment in nuclear power (as you did).
— their predictions allow for substantial growth in energy requirements.
It may be that you disagree with some of their goals and strategies such as reducing carbon emissions from transport or their predictions regarding battery use or their reliance on future innovation, but I saw nothing at all to suggest that their motivation is anything but meeting the growing energy needs of the future. There was certainly nothing to suggest that they are shooting for de-growth. Perhaps we read different NESO reports.
A quick aside: I lived in California until recently. Charging points for electric vehicles are EVERYWHERE. Every employer, every gas station and every car park has charging points. The traffic jams driving into Mountain View consist overwhelmingly of electric vehicles. All of my friends with EVs have charging points in their homes. There’s no reason why we couldn’t or shouldn’t have the same thing over here. And, when EVs are finally self-driving, they’ll be able to nip off in the evening and charge themselves.
UCL? Just round the corner. Well done them!
I’ve no problem with an ev future. I like them very much. But I believe people should be offered a choice. And the best choice will naturally be the most frequently chosen.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case with EVs. Unless there’s a big subsidy ie everyone else pays towards the cost of your car, no one seems to want them. They are super popular in very progressive areas, California, New York, some other areas. London. Etc. but elsewhere not so much.
That’s not my prejudice. It just seems to be the case. Also they’re not really cheaper. Even now before the government ramps up some form of new taxation to compensate itself for the lack of fuel duty (tax).
And the self driving ones, as I’ve said before, will never ever get approved. Someone has to sign that off. And when the first accident happens and the first kid is run over, they know they will be looking for someone to blame.
Nuclear. Self driving EVs. Jet boots. A future we are being denied.
The de growth thing doesn’t come from NESO. It comes from what environmental extremists, (now mainstream ) have been saying for years. You don’t need a car. You don’t need to fly. You don’t need so many clothes. You don’t need gadgets. You don’t need new things. You don’t need your economy to grow because growth equals consumption equals environmental harm. Before she decided to change to hating Israel it’s basically what Greta was saying for years. While Gove, Miliband and all nodded along like puppies.
There are certainly climate extremists who are anti-growth but I don't think they are anywhere near the mainstream. They are certainly nowhere near the mainstream of the Labour Party. We’ll have to put this on our “I Disagree” list, I think! Likewise, EVs and self-driving cars.
Waymo and other companies have had self-driving taxis in several cities for several years. The number of fatal accidents is in the single digits compared with 42,000 deaths in people-driven cars in 2022. They are taking longer to reach widespread adoption than people expected but it will come. For public and commercial traffic, the reduced costs alone will make it happen.
EVs will soon be cheaper too as battery technology gets cheaper.
Fair enough Ragged. I’m just listening to the climate people when they talk. Like Miliband they talk about a fantastical future which bears no relation to current technology/policies.
I can’t believe that anyone can listen to these people speak and believe their agenda for the future is ‘the same, but sustainable’. It clearly isn’t. But sure let’s park that one.
I like self driving cars. I don’t think they are especially dangerous at all. But our government is too timid to approve them. The UK following the lead of the anti technology EU will regulate them out of existence.
Hi Ragged, apologies for the late reply. The element in the NESO report I referring to is the stress they place on demand side flexibility through a price mechanism. I would read this as at peak times they cannot meet actual demand and will use price to effectively ration usage. On Nuclear, they showing a falling real value of Nuclear energy in the supply mix. Their proposals do concern me as they are expecting to use technologies for long duration energy storage that are right now in a development stage and no where near commercial viability. That said, it’s not NESO that I would say aim at de-growth. That to me comes from the politicians and activists, and while some explicitly discuss de-growth, I’m looking more at what they actually do and the effects those policies have. So for instance, if your policies result in high energy prices compared to your peers, this will negatively impact competitiveness and investment in industries and therefore growth. So as I said above, they seem to deliberately not take up workable solutions that would address de-carbonisation while maintaining growth.
The NESO report is interesting as while they say that this government’s objective is theoretically possible, I would say the subtext makes it clear it is what Sir Humphrey Appleby would describe as a “courageous decision, Minister”.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Mr Wilson. But I am glad you took the time to help me understand your position. I think I understand it now but I just disagree.
Thanks for engaging!
Yes, thank you for the discussion. We may end up disagreeing, but we come away richer for the exchange of views and ideas.
Yes, brilliant. Thank you. I will say more once I have finished University Challenge.
Brilliant P. 🎯
Thanks for the reminder about the 70s. We had coal fired central heating in our 1960s house but it wasn't very good and you needed to light the fire to run it. So nights and mornings were cold until the grate was cleaned out and the fire relit. And I well remember the ice on the inside of the single glazed windows. Not sure when we got gas - late 70s, early 80s? Made a huge difference. At least I remember how to live without lots of heating - youngsters will have to learn this.
I live in one of the windiest parts of the country, surrounded by wretched wind turbines designed as the solution to a non-existent problem and which haven't moved in days/weeks. Our government hates us and after 3 months has succeeded in offending the whole population, quite an achievement! What a dreadful bunch of numpties.
Yes. Those single glazed iron(?) framed windows. You don’t see them much these days. Except I just did, while walking past the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury. A classic design. But I expect the flats with their big windows are a nightmare to heat.
All this wasteful, virtue-signalling BS by the UK State will only stop if the money is cut off. But the majority are dependent on the State in one way or another, so they have no incentive to vote for a smaller one until they really feel the disadvantage. It’s going to take a revolt by the overburdened, tax-paying minority. The top 10% earn £60k minimum - £67k on average - and pay 60% of all income tax. But there are only about 1.6m of them. You see the problem?
Absolutely Richard. It’s clearly unsustainable. I see the tractors are massing in Westminster right now. Maybe this is the beginning of the revolt you mention. They are a sympathetic bunch. And Starmer has already reached for the ‘we’re doing it to save the Blessed NHS’ lever, so I’m not sure where else he has to go.
Thanks for another excellent post, always guaranteed to warm the spirits and keep the blood pressure up. I wonder if Substack is getting crowded, there are a lot of good writers out there and you can’t keep up with everyone, or afford to if you keep signing up for another fiver a month - and then feel guilty if you cancel. I expect there’s been a lot of other news out there especially in the USA which makes news from the UK depressing and dull. I had hoped, or at least held out the hope, that Labour might be just really dull and shallow and follow the focus groups and look as if they were reining back the madder green and woke policies. Imagine how much political kudos they would have got if they had come out as pro nuclear and pro British farming and understood concerns about rapid social changes. But they didn’t have the base intelligence to do that which means that they are seriously ideological and will do untold damage before reality catches up.
The question then is whether we invest now in a diesel generator and do we risk social opprobrium if we run it during a power cut? What is the etiquette here, and do you upset all your neighbours or invite them in to charge their phones? Do you expect them to bring a bottle of wine, and how do you get them to go at 2 in the morning? There’s plenty of material for LSO to keep writing about.
Thanks Martin. Yes I think Substack has got a little crowded. But weirdly after I posted that, my recent post about the US election absolutely blew up. Putting on thousands and thousands of views in a few hours. So someone has obviously shared it on a big platform somewhere which is very kind.
Labour have turned out to be just as ideological as we feared. It’s not really any surprise. The idea that they’d had moved to the centre under Starmer was a bit of wishful thinking. You just had to listen to them and their bonkers ideas, which are now their bonkers policies, to know they had not changed a bit.
Yes. A jenny if you have the space. I’ve been thinking of buying a mega battery charger thing. So I can charge everyone’s phones and run their computers. Which is what my family really cares about. Also. Not sure a jenny in central London would go down very well with the neighbours. Oh and it would get nicked after about ten minutes too!
All the very best Martin
Thanks for persisting and good to know the fan base will grow. I know, I expected little from Labour but there was a lingering hope that taking advice from Blair and with the civil service on board, they might tack - or be seen to tack - towards a superficial centrist view. Tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration - but that hope lasted about three seconds. Now it’s downhill all the way for four years.
My 30,000BTU stove has worked just fine keeping me warm in my van for 14+ years.
Sounds idyllic Vonu.
The rent is right.
It's brilliant that you can make me laugh when it's not even funny.
Ha thanks Richard. We’re not allowed to say these days, but mental people doing mad things is still a *bit* funny!
Great stuff, Mr LSO. As usual I agree with most of what you say.
I remember back in the seventies when we moved into our first council house with central heating. It was lovely! I used to lie next to the vents to enjoy the blasts of hot air. We don't get to enjoy that so much now because my house is still warm enough in November without putting the heating on. I blame those pesky regulations about building climate friendly homes. Saves us a fortune in heating bills though!
PS. I had crushed beetles with chilli when I was trekking through the Burmese jungle in my misspent youth. Delicious! I still love my ribeye steak and my rack of lamb though but they are an occasional treat now instead of a daily meal. Pasta and soups are delicious too and are better for my waistline.
Like many ideas related to climate change, there are sensible steps we can take without banning All The Good Things. Burning coal is bad. Banning plastic straws — doesn't make much difference and pisses everyone off.
I like the way that Bristol is closing many neighbourhoods to cars so that children can play in the street like we used to in the old days. Now we just need to fix the public transport system so that not everyone needs to have a car — the way it used to be when I was young.
You sound like the Monty Python "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch, with the exception that you appear to be looking forward to your WEF-inflicted penury.
🤣
Over the past 50+ years. The highest life expectancy in the UK has been London and the South East.
People on average live up to 10yrs longer in London than they do up North or in Wales. That has always been the case since I have been on the planet.
London and the Southeast has more gas boilers, more congestion, more traffic jams, more cars, more delivery vans, more motorcycles, more buses, more taxis, more mopeds, more trains more airports, more planes taking off and circling overhead in landing waiting patterns than anywhere else in the country.
Stanstead airport, Luton airport, Heathrow airport Gatwick airport, Biggin hill airport, City airport to name but a few in this surrounding this area.
The caring London Mayor Mr Khan is worried about what poor Londoners breathe in. Cynics say his ulez and congestion charge is a money making pyramid scheme scam. A golden money tree.
He is worried about your lungs unless of course you give him 12 quid in which case its f#ck your lungs.
But what about poor londoners breathing this toxic filthy black air into their lungs?? If the price is right... f#ck em.. chug away! Thats what happens right?
So a farmer breathing in clean air all his life in Scotland or Cumbria or West and Mid Wales will die much sooner. Children playing in a village school in Wales are going to live the longest right? Its obvious... isnt it?
The life expectancy was true in the 70's and is still true now.
Its almost as if our climate pollution evangalists are wrong isnt it?
If we bother too look at health and life expectancy?
Aaah, but economics are very different some will say pointing at London and the South East being more affluent?
Lets look at that. If this air is so toxic and bad for you then the people in London and the South East would die sooner? The farmer in the clean air of Wales or Scotland etc would outlive them by a mile.
Doesnt matter if you got 50 quid in the bank or 50 million quid. If that air is so bad then when you breathe it in your fooked!
A millionaire marathon runner living in london still has that toxic air to breathe. The rural Welsh or Scottish doesnt.
(They probably eat less fast food too than City folk too)
The air may have more pollutents in London and the South East, but the argument about how dangerous that air actually is.
Now lets look at the climate. The earth has been warmer than this in its history and cooler.
The earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. Ww have roughly 80yrs of fairly reliable data. Much of that data is not global. Data before that was sporadic and totally unreliable. After all, 3/4 of the globe is water.
What was the temperature one mile down in the middle of the pacific ocean 300yrs ago? Nobody knows.
Leonard Nimoy catastrophing about the 2nd ice age coming in the most dramatic way possible..... didnt happen did it?
All the scientist agreed at the time, the footage is still on you tube... and all WRONG!
In the 80's they were at it again, global warming this time, London was going to be 2 foot underwater. All the Scientist agreed.
So convincing were they, that they convinced government to spend billions and build a giant barrier on the Thames to save poor London.
Remind me how many times it has been used now?.... oh thats right... NEVER!
All the scientists agreed... and all WRONG!
Then we had the hole in the Ozone layer, we had 2yrs to stop using cfc's or the hole would get so big and we would all choke...
Science was clear once again. The people doing the scaremongering on that occasion had obviously never looked at a globe of the earth.
These particular morons had never looked at the grain of sand size of the UK compared to the size of the earth. Or even compared to China, who still use them last time I looked.
Nah, climate is the new religion. The believers are followers just like religious followers. They are not going to let a little thing like facts get in the way of their belief system.
Politicians have found another golden nugget. Pay us more taxes and we will stop the sun shining.
And people buy into it
Very passionate Ludloff. Thanks! Some great points.
I’d defend the Thames Barrier though. Because I live in London. And my life is precious.
So just on the off chance that there’s flooding, I think we should spend whatever it takes, and build an even bigger, better one…..🤣
I dont think there is any harm in having preventative measures, its good planning, I personally think they should work on the flood areas in places like Worcester too.
The problem I have with it was that it was built on yet another doomsday catastrophising lie.
Worcester for example, has had way more problems over the years and nobody in Westminster seems interested.
I really dont trust politicians😂 And I'm increasingly skeptical about Scientists these days.
I used to love science. But these group think money backed science theories has dirtied the good name of science, which is a shame.
Heres an economic policy that we want to pursue... now make the science fit
Exactly. Do you remember BBC 2 Horizon in the 80s and maybe 90s? ‘All scientists know that there’s nothing smaller than an atom. But is there?’ Type stuff. String theory. Relativity. All sorts of mind blowing ideas.
At least for a little me. Now ‘science’ is just a relentless scold, justifying why government should dictate our lifestyle choices. No thanks. That’s not science. It’s propaganda.
Go and find out something that will make a twelve year old me’s mind boggle. That’s your job.
I couldnt agree more, a relentless scold, thats a great way to put it.👍
I recently added a book to my audible wish list. Its called 'The real Anthony Fauci' by Robert Kennedy Jr.
I havnt listened to it yet. I keep putting it off. I may even delete it from my collection.
I'm jaded enough, I'm not sure if I want any more evidence of political infused science
Throughly enjoyed this article LSO, as well as being deliciously sarcastic and witty, poking fun at all the right (wrong) people the facts cited are all bang on the mark.
Thank you, and more please! 🙏
Thank you Nicholas!
Oh I laughed out loud at this, you have a gift. I too remember the 70s and as a working class council estate kid they were bloody cold most of the time. Ice on the inside of the windows in winter. I swore when I had kids they would never suffer the poverty I did in childhood. Then along comes Minibrain and Stoma.
The climate has always changed, it always will and there is sod all we can do about it. Yes, we should be circumspect about how we use the precious resources on our planet. We shouldn't pollute it with our rubbish etc. But we need fossil fuels and will do for decades to come. We are too far north of the equator for solar farms to be viable. I despair. Not to mention the harm they do to our beautiful flora and fauna. And wind turbines or bird choppers as we call them. They really are a pair of utter morons.
Exactly this Toffeepud. It took generations for working class people like my mum and dad’s families to become middle class people with central heating and foreign holidays and the rest. Now Miliband and co seem to want to bring back wide scale deprivation, cold, and want, this time to feed their own ideological pretensions.
I genuinely can’t help myself from thinking that there is an element of spite in all this. The same as with the VAT on private schools thing. They simply can’t bear the idea of the lower orders doing better for themselves.
Thanks for your kind words too.
You're welcome. I've shared your post widely, deserving of a larger audience 👏
I know it won't get rid of them, but I have signed this.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Yes. It’s just a bit of fun Jeremy. All the leftists are saying ‘You don’t understand. This is not how democracy works.’ Yes. We know thanks. It’s a troll numpties.
Also. How come they’re all ‘You lost. Get over it.’ Now? I can’t remember that being their attitude when they lost in 2016. Either time.🤣
We just got done with an election where zero (Tory) seats was a legit campaign goal and now Labour are making themselves so despised that they'll get the same treatment.
Wanting every party dead and gone just doesn't strike me as a sustainable situation.
Agreed Sathanas. And I’m less than impressed by Badenoch so far. She should be out front and centre on farmers and the Allison Pearson free speech story. Piling it on. Making a case. But barely a whimper. I’m beginning to wonder whether an insurgent party like Reform might have a chance after all.