Forum Topic

Comedy gold

Allister Heath (who edits the Sunday Telegraph) is one of Britain's finest comedians, known for such as "Western civilisation is being driven to oblivion by the false prophets of ‘diversity’" and "Britain is already too far down the road to serfdom to turn back now," but his latest column in sister paper Daily Telegraph is a cracker: "The international Left-wing elites are well on their way to crushing democracy," he jokes. (This was spurred by the decision of that hotbed of wokery the European Court of Human Rights, packed as it is with notorious leftwing extremists.)Hilarious!https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/international-left-wing-elites-crushing-democracy/

Richard Carter ● 22d35 Comments

The oil companies have known for decades.https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhat%20we%20found%20is%20that,denying%20that%20very%20climate%20science.%E2%80%9Dhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/12/shell-says-it-lobbies-for-energy-transition-during-climate-ruling-appeal#:~:text=Shell%20has%20argued%20that%20it,than%20it%20did%20in%202019.https://www.discover.ukri.org/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-discoveries/index.html

Philippa Bond ● 18d

That was meant to say "...the evidence of the exponential rise in the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is all too obvious from scientific analysis of the air around us." (Unfortunately, apart from the other pollution produced alongside them the increase in greenhouse gases isn't the obvious without scientific analysis!)

Michael Ixer ● 19d

I'm not sure I've seen 2030 being set as a critical date for climate change, other than the one originally set for final sale of ICE cars in the UK, now charged and aligned with the EU one of 2035.The net zero target date is 2050 as far as I'm aware. I regularly attend science lectures, mainly at Imperial College or hosted by the British Astronomical Association, and I'd say I've met few attendees or lecturers who don't accept the realities of man made climate change (well, except Piers Corbyn who always seems to be popping up); the evidence of the exponential rise in the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is all too obvious. What isn't too clear is the rate at which temperatures will rise and at what point the level of greenhouse gases will reach an irreversible "runaway" point. For example, my understanding (which is a very amateur one) is that the effect of polar ice cap melting was underestimated. The compounded effect is that as the more ice melts the reflective effect on sunlight will reduce adding to the heating of the earth. The underestimate of this one parameter could mean 2050 is too late.I must admit the burying of heads in the sand by many world leaders, CEOs, etc isn't encouraging but at my age the long term effect probably isn't going to affect me significantly. However, I suspect we've reached the point now that the only way of recovering the situation is an effective carbon capture process but to date we're short of delivering one that is anywhere near effective enough to solve the potential catastrophe. Personally, if I was a "young person" I might be anxious about the future but, perhaps given Ukraine and the Middle East, one should be more concerned about someone throwing nuclear weapons around?Anyway, as I understand it, the ECHR case was about the right to family life as an direct result of the failure to act on net zero? So if the women were constrained in that - either being forced to stay at home or having their lives shortened by rising temperatures - then surely that is a legal judgement on their reduced quality of family life? If the result of that is that governments have to take action to mitigate climate change, and halt the potential extinction of the human race, then who could argue that's a bad thing even if it is poor democracy? Well, except perhaps the cockroaches who are waiting around to claim world domination! :-)

Michael Ixer ● 19d

Ms Holliday'The ECHR was signed in 1950 and came into force in 1953.  I do not think climate change existed then so impossible for it to be included'.That's a bit of a giveaway statement !When did 'climate change' start ?I am told that there is a very good documentary on YouTube called 'Climate:The Movie' by Martin Durkin.In it numerous Nobel Prize winning scientists and US Presidential advisors debunk and disprove the alarmist beliefs that we will all be affected by extreme rising temperatures by 2030.Apparently 70% of 'young people' are suffering 'anxiety' by believing these claims.

John Hawkes ● 19d

I am sorry Steven, but the ECHR on the whole, including Article 8, was drafted after WWII in order to protect human rights and political freedoms. It was drafted in 1950 and the Convention came into force in 1953.

Ivonne Holliday ● 19d

Ivonne, I don’t think I am interpreting Article 8 in a way that suits me. Article 8 was inserted in the aftermath of the Second Word War to safeguard citizens against totalitarian regimes that might have wanted to curtail their right to marry, to have children and live as a family. The ECHR have chosen to apply this clause to an area of social policy in a way that that goes far beyond the intentions of those who drafted and signed the Convention. My objection is not to the views of these women about climate change nor am I in the least influenced by the fact they are women. My concern is that the Court has encroached on an area of public policy which should be determined by elected representatives, not judges.

Steven Rose ● 20d

Hello Steven,It is a great pity that you choose the interpretation of Article 8 that suits you.  You quite cunningly forgot to mention their right to their home.  Interestingly, in today's interpretation of things, the article mentions:  "Everyone has the right to respect his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."  Perhaps the problem was that the litigation was brought by women?It is a violation of democracy for a party leader to withdraw the whip from an MP for disagreeing with the party leader.  It can be withdrawn for many reasons, but disagreement is not one of them.  Shall we say it was very helpful to Johnson to have "yes" people in Parliament?I could not care less about whatever Labour did as a justification for excusing BoJo.  He did this just to ensure he could get "Brexit done with the oven ready deal."  I think experience has shown us that there was no oven ready deal and they had no idea on how to proceed.  But, hey, why should he have to accept criticism?  Perhaps he was too worried about Carrie's redecoration of No. 10.As far as Labour is concerned, there was an enormous problem of antisemitism, was there not?  I also seem to remember, rather vaguely I admit, that at the time there was also a problem with a comparison made between NATO and Russia?  As for Abbott, was there not a problem with levels of discrimination when she said that Irish and Jewish people do not suffer as much discrimination as black people do?  Please do tell me I am wrong.

Ivonne Holliday ● 20d

Hi IvonneThe judges (with the exception of the British judge, who dissented) ruled that the inaction of the Swiss government on climate change violates the clause of the Convention safeguarding family life. In order to comply with this ruling the Swiss government would need to promote net zero. That is not my interpretation. It is a fact.  The ECHR has chosen to intervene in the social and economic policy of the Swiss Federation. I suspect that the Swiss will resent this interference, whatever their views on climate change, and  will ignore the ruling.It is not a violation of democracy for a party leader to withdraw the whip from an MP. Boris Johnson withdrew the whip from Remainers. Keir Starmer has withdrawn the whip from Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. These individuals are still MPs and can stand as independents at the next election if they wish.

Steven Rose ● 20d

Precisely, Steven Rose, what is the point of electing MPs if the PM decides to withdraw the whip because they do not agree with him? The ECHR was signed in 1950 and came into force in 1953.  I do not think climate change existed then so impossible for it to be included.  I do not think the ruling extended the clause regarding the right to family life to net zero.  That is your preferred interpretation.Article 8 clearly states that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."  What the Swiss women were saying is that they would not be able to live (or survive?) as a result of increased temperatures.

Ivonne Holliday ● 20d

The European Convention on Human Rights  was intended to protect citizens from totalitarianism, not to usurp the right of national governments to make their own laws on social issues.The Convention makes no reference to climate change. It is the judges who have decided to extend the clause regarding the right to family life to net zero. But as Allister Heath  asked, where will this power grab by the judges of the ECHR end? Will they instruct the UK government to increase spending on the NHS, or build more houses in the name of promoting family life? Will they instruct the government to issue a smoking ban since children whose parents smoke are likely to be deprived of family life if their parents die prematurely?  No doubt many people would advocate these steps, but it is for elected politicians to enact such laws, not unelected judges in Strasbourg. Otherwise what is the point of electing MPs?

Steven Rose ● 20d

Notwithstanding your lecture on Plato, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what democracy is. The courts are a part of democracy, and they apply the laws because governments have signed up to them. So, when the Supreme Court here in the UK decides (as it did when Johnson tried to prorogue parliament) that the government has acted against the law, that has to be accepted whether it likes it or not: it can't just ignore laws it doesn't like.So, in the same way, we have signed up voluntarily as a country to the European Convention of Human Rights and so must comply with its provisions. We can't just refuse to accept a decision of the Court (the responsibility of which is to monitor the  Convention) that we don’t like if it decides, on a point of law, that a country has acted against it. Of course we could do so if we abandoned the Convention, but quite apart from considerations of, for example, the Good Friday Agreement, to do so would put us in the company of .... Russia and Belarus. Not company a civilised country would want to join, you would think - though it seems that climate crisis-denying Heath disagrees. And his dressing it up as the left-wing elite supposedly taking over democracy is, frankly, laughable - hence my original post.

Richard Carter ● 20d

"The Supreme Court did not intervene when a largely Remainer House of Commons tried to overturn the result of the Referendum."Absolutely right!  Nothing to do with the Supreme Court but for the HoC to deal with.I still remember BoJo withdrawing the whip to some 20 elected MPs because they did not agree with him.  Golly, a true sign of statemanship and democracy! Wow!!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 20d

Hi IvonneI agree with you that the  executive, the legislature and the judiciary should have separate powers. The problem is that the judiciary is increasingly encroaching upon the territory of the legislature, making the law rather than interpreting the law.I wouldn’t want judges to be elected, as this would inevitably introduce politics into the judiciary. Judges should stay out of politics, which is why I am critical of the growing tendency for judges, particularly those in Europe, to stray into the political arena.  The case highlighted by Allister Heath in his article, where the ECHR decided that countries which fail to decarbonise are in breach of the Convention on the right to family life, is an example.The problem with the case brought by Gina Miller against the government on the need to seek Parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50 to leave the EU was that the Supreme Court’s intervention was seen by many as selective.  The Supreme Court did not intervene when a largely Remainer House of Commons tried to overturn the result of the Referendum.

Steven Rose ● 20d

Hello Steven,I am rather confused with your post.  I believe that, in a democracy, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary have clearly separate powers in order to guard against tyranny.You mention unelected judges.  On which grounds do you think you or I are qualified to elect judges. Do you think it would be wise to adopt the American style of naming judges, namely being chosen by the President?  I wounder if I could also add consultants in the medical field. What I most certainly welcomed was the Miller vs Secretary of State for exiting the EU court decision which did not allow the Government to exit the EU without the approval from Parliament.That was and is not a threat to democracy.

Ivonne Holliday ● 20d

Mr Hawkes. Yes, I agree the outcome may not always be correct as there are are many variables in the use of the English language along with other variables such as unconscious bias, etc. But perhaps, if one wishes to be pedantic, I should have said they have the intent to be unbiased?

Michael Ixer ● 20d

Mr Hawkes. It was rather a generic comment about voting for a party not making or proposing serious changes to mitigate global warming, or voting against such changes in a referendum which one is free to do in a democracy; however, then one has to face the possibility of human extinction. 

Michael Ixer ● 20d

Mr Ixer'I suppose in a democracy one can choose to decide to vote for the extinction of the human race?'Which Party has this in its manifesto ?

John Hawkes ● 20d

Mr Ixer'unbiased news from the BBC'.Is there such a thing as 'unbiased news' ?With the best will in the world, every time any journalist, including those at the BBC, starts choosing words be they nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs and then hits the keyboard, he/she cannot help in doing so but reflect their own intellectual viewpoint or bias over the matter in hand. It may not be propaganda- a particular position determinedly and deliberately put out even if known not to be true - but there will still be personal influence in the content.All any reasonably intelligent person can do is to take content from many sources, take a view as to what is the credibility and agenda of these sources and then decide what they think is 'true'.For what it's worth, I tend to triangulate news and Opinion from the Guardian, BBC, Mail Online, the Spectator and Prospect.Then I let my gut instinct and prejudice kick in !

John Hawkes ● 20d

This discussion began over 2000 years ago  when Plato compared democracy to a ship where ignorant sailors, who have no knowledge of navigation, vie with one another for control of the helm. Plato believed that the ship of state should be steered by a wise navigator i.e. a philosopher king. Modern Platonists, who  fear that people in a democracy can’t be trusted to take sensible decisions and might even vote for the extinction of the human race ( to quote Michael), put their faith in judges to curb the excesses of supposedly demagogic politicians. The (unelected) judges, whether in the Supreme Court or the ECHR or the ICJ, have become the modern equivalent of Plato’s philosopher kings, a role which they are increasingly happy to embrace.Of course if you agree with their decisions, whether it is to rule the plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda unlawful, or to promote net zero or to find that South Africa’s accusation of genocide against Israel is plausible, then you are likely to welcome their intervention in the political process. As a result you are  likely to deny any left wing bias on their part, since people only tend to think those they disagree with are biased. And by the same token you are likely to deny that the judges pose any threat to democracy. But I think in some cases they do.

Steven Rose ● 20d

Mr Ixer'spouting right wing views'Could you give some examples of what you think are 'right wing' views ?

John Hawkes ● 20d

Duh obviously; my point, though, was to highlight Heath's exaggerated, hysterical even, claim that this decision represents that "The international Left-wing elites are well on their way to crushing democracy,"

Richard Carter ● 21d

I suppose in a democracy one can choose to decide to vote for the extinction of the human race? 

Michael Ixer ● 21d

The fact that the ‘Telegraph’ is an independent right wing newspaper is irrelevant. The point at issue is whether Allister Heath makes a convincing case to support his view that the ECHR is undermining democracy by usurping the right of elected politicians to make their own decisions about net zero. This should be assessed by examining the evidence he presents in the article, not by his alleged bias. No  one is free of bias, neither journalists nor readers.

Steven Rose ● 21d

My Google and othern news feeds give me a range of articles from a range of newspapers and science sites. But obviously I get unbiased news from the BBC.

Michael Ixer ● 21d

Stating the obvious. And why would a paper not do that? That’s what newspapers have always done. To bleat that a paper is biased is naive. It’s called freedom of the press. It also fits with the readerships who want to only read stuff that aligns with their own bias. So right wing bigots read the telegraph and left wing extremists (you  people know who you are) know where to get their latest affirmations from. Simples.

Freddie Francis ● 21d

You're correct Freddie but people are also within their rights to point out that certain newspapers are biased and spouting right wing views that are in the interests of their expat and foreign owners. 

Michael Ixer ● 21d

There seems to be a few confused people here who think that newspapers are supposed to be unbiased. That thing the BBC is supposed to be. That it applies to the press in general too. Oh dear. 😏

Freddie Francis ● 21d

Steven,Was this not related to the Swiss women who maintaind their government was infringing on its human rights by not fighting climate change more forcefully hence putting them at risk of dying during heatwaves?

Ivonne Holliday ● 21d

Allister Heath's point was that the ECHR, in ruling that countries which fail to decarbonise are in breach of the law ensuring that people are entitled to family life, are exceeding their remit, involving themselves in issues like net zero which should be decided ny elected legislators, not unelected judges.

Steven Rose ● 21d

Mr Evans'Perhaps you forgot about The Sun, The Times, Daily Express and Daily Mail as well as the Telegraph'.Whenever this point is made I always think that if so many more of these papers are bought or read on line than those with a different perspective, perhaps it is because their opinions represent more closely the majority views of the general public.It does not make the opinions maliciously wrong or biased nor the readership.Just different.In the case of the Guardian, I am not saying the topics are not important and sometimes newsworthy, but perhaps its tediously predictable spouting and promotion of racism, disability and gender opinion, sometimes in the context of intersectionality, puts people off and keeps its sales low.But then this does not matter as it is funded by a Trust whose wealth ironically came from slave trading !'The extensive academic research summarised above makes clear that John Edward Taylor, our founding editor, and most of the backers who helped fund the Manchester Guardian had links to transatlantic slavery.' - 28 March 2023. It is certainly true that no one else seems to think there is a bigger prospective readership such that would it worthwhile publishing an equivalent tabloid. But you have also forgotten the Daily Mirror which is Labour supporting, and it is a tired cliché to say the Times is Conservative biased.Its news reporting to me appears as unbiased as one would expect from any serious news media and it gives Comment space to a pretty wide range of opinion.If those of a leftist view don't like 'the right wing press' they can either crowd fund the setting up of media supporting a 'left wing one' or turn to online leftist media such as the Novara Media - 'a platform for left-wing politics, culture and media'. Seems there's plenty of media outlets to echo everyone's point of view ! 

John Hawkes ● 21d

I agree with you Nick.We all know that governments have a sell-by date.  We had this with the Thatcher-Major period, with the Blair-Brown period and now with Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak period is coming to an end too.  With the latter, there has been a lot of dangerous propaganda and/or misinformation.  But I suppose the best means of defense is attack?  Needless to say, I am not too impressed with the politicians of today, particularly so of the conservative lot.  Let us say that integrity, honesty, compassion, courage and respect seem to have been lost somewhere along the line.

Ivonne Holliday ● 21d

John, you are not comparing like for like. Perhaps you forgot about The Sun, The Times, Daily Express and Daily Mail as well as the Telegraph. Entirely unbiased, all of them. Not. NICK

Nicholas Evans ● 21d

Mr Evans'All part of the Conservatives not so subtle campaign to undermine the opposition during the run-up to the overdue election. Their mouthpieces pen this rubbish to generate headlines'.Never mind.Labour has its own 'Der Stürmer', namely the Guardian to counteract the Telegraph.

John Hawkes ● 21d

Mr Carter'Allister Heath (who edits the Sunday Telegraph) is one of Britain's finest comedians, known for such as "Western civilisation is being driven to oblivion by the false prophets of ‘diversity’" and "Britain is already too far down the road to serfdom to turn back now," but his latest column in sister paper Daily Telegraph is a cracker: "The international Left-wing elites are well on their way to crushing democracy," he jokes. (This was spurred by the decision of that hotbed of wokery the European Court of Human Rights, packed as it is with notorious leftwing extremists.)Hilarious!'I somehow feel this off the wall post is a rather desperate attempt by you to gain attention.Somewhat like an ignored four year old standing in the playground and screaming "poo, wee, bum, knickers" !Still now you have got it off your chest go back into the class room and finish off your 'Janet or John go to the 'Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust' book.

John Hawkes ● 21d

All part of the Conservatives not so subtle campaign to undermine the opposition during the run-up to the overdue election. Their mouthpieces pen this rubbish to generate headlines. Even if it’s not read it still drives comment on social media and is difficult not to read the concocted headlines when passing a newspaper display. I expect the assault on Angela Rayner is more of the same. Not so much comedy as increasingly dangerous propaganda.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 21d