In a remarkable email exchange obtained exclusively by Liberal Democrat Voice, Conservative Parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith has accused East Midlands Conservative MEP Roger Helmer of being “utterly blind to the value of the environment”. In return, Helmer has attacked Goldsmith of “disseminat[ing]pejorative falsehoods”.
Here are the key extracts:
Roger Helmer, 20 October:
“I understand that you wrote to a constituent using the following words: ‘Roger Helmer is utterly blind to the value of the environment, and the need to protect it.’ This is a downright falsehood, and is highly pejorative … You are perfectly entitled to take a different view. But you are not entitled to disseminate pejorative falsehoods of this kind.”Zac Goldsmith, 21 October:
“I must say I’m surprised by your response, given that you have repeatedly gone out of your way to attack me in whichever newspaper/radio will hear you. In some instances, you have responded to newspaper stories that you hadn’t even bothered to check before forming and broadcasting your ‘half-baked’ views.”
This latest exchange highlights the continuing internal dissent in the Conservatives over David Cameron’s “Vote Blue, Go Green” slogan. For example, Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP for Chichester, called action to reduce carbon emissions “morally reprehensible” and Cllr John Gilbey earlier this year, as leader of Canterbury City Council, ordered that references to climate change be purged from the council’s strategy document, calling David Cameron “wrong”.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
110 Comments
I’m not surprised to see this as the range of opinion across the whole country is divided, so why wouldn’t it be within every political party? Your attempt to make this out to be a Conservative-only issue is pretty ridiculous.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Well I don’t know a single Liberal Democrat who does not believe the global warming is a serious problem. The real debate should be what to do about it, but in the Tory party it is all about whether it is anything to worry about.
We can’t afford the luxury of that kind of debate when we now need action.
Which all goes to show that when it comes to the national interest, the Tories are still not fit for office.
I think the point, LFAT, is that Roger Helmer’s view is a relatively mainstream one in your party (at least, that’s the suggestion), and it’s a fairly extreme one.
“Well I don’t know a single Liberal Democrat who does not believe the global warming is a serious problem. The real debate should be what to do about it …”
Sadly, to be literally accurate, the real debate within the party (at conference, anyway) was about whether action on global warming should have a higher priority than tax cuts, and the party voted that it shouldn’t.
I don’t know how anyone can seriously imagine that the Tories regard environmental conservation as important. Have they not spoken to a Tory, or read the screeds by Iain Dale et al?
“Sadly, to be literally accurate, the real debate within the party (at conference, anyway) was about whether action on global warming should have a higher priority than tax cuts, and the party voted that it shouldn’t.”
I’m sorry, CCF, that’s actually not true.
Paul Holmes, one of the supporters of the amendment said on LDV: “I and the other movers of the amendment (Evan Harris MP, Richard Grayson and Duncan Brack) agree with 99.9% of Make it Happen [inc existing 4p reduction in income tax]. We do not however support the twenty words that are a vague and open ended commitment to reducing overall public spending in favour of unspecified tax cuts.”
I wrote:
“Sadly, to be literally accurate, the real debate within the party (at conference, anyway) was about whether action on global warming should have a higher priority than tax cuts, and the party voted that it shouldn’t.”
Grammar Police replied:
“I’m sorry, CCF, that’s actually not true.”
It is absolutely true.
This is the wording of the amendment that was defeated at the party conference:
“Conference further resolves that any reduction in overall levels of public expenditure should be a lower priority than measures to reduce inequality in British society, improving public services, including in particular health, education, child care and public transport, and making the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change.”
[my emphasis]
Er, I’m sorry, but rejecting the additional words you quote above in the motion doesn’t mean the direct, diametric opposite of what the amendment stated.
The arguments made in the debate were about tying the party’s hands to increases in public spending and the message it sent out. Also, for me, the major problem with the statement was that I don’t agree that public expenditure is *always* in all circumstances, the only way to reduce inequality.
CCF, it’s well-known that nothing the party does is right as far as you’re concerned (even a democratic vote of it’s members), so it doesn’t surprise me that you choose to characterise the debate on Make it Happen as “Party puts tax cuts above all this other good stuff to spend taxes on”.
But in the absence of a statment in the policy reading: “Conference further resolves that any reduction in overall levels of public expenditure should be a *higher* priority than measures to reduce inequality in British society, improving public services, including in particular health, education, child care and public transport, and making the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change”
Excuse me if I just don’t buy it. Sorry.
For goodness sake lets not turn this thread into yet another re-hash of Conference.
Grammar Police
Please just read properly what I actually wrote. Here it is for the third time:
“Sadly, to be literally accurate, the real debate within the party (at conference, anyway) was about whether action on global warming should have a higher priority than tax cuts, and the party voted that it shouldn’t.”
If you have read the text of the amendment that was rejected, it’s difficult to see how you can dispute the literal accuracy of that statement.
Of course it’s open to you to argue that conference would have supported the amendment if it hadn’t also referred to inequality, but I did listen to most of the speeches and I don’t remember anyone expressing that view.
I propose handbags at dawn as a fair resuolution to this arguement. CCF thinks that the Lib Dems want other policies ahead of tackling climate change, GP thinks the opposite. I hear that leather handbags are the way to go, as they have a nice weight but not too much.
Yes, indeed, a green leather handbag for me. I like the colour. And it’s always handbags at dawn with CCF, he just can’t leave anything, and sadly I often rise to the bait.
CCF, the party *did not* vote that tax cuts should have a higher priority than action on global warming; to be “literally accurate”. There is no policy in existance that justifies your assertion: it’s simply false. It’s not even an unintended consequence of the policy we passed.
There are all sorts of reasons to vote down an amendment to a motion at conference; only one of which is because you actually feel the opposite. However, I listened to all the speeches and not one person argued that tax cuts were more important than action on global warming. So perhaps you arguing that people *actually meant* that tax cuts were more important than global warming, but didn’t want to say?
I know that you want to believe the worst of the Party because it justifies your deliberately disgruntled outlook, but please.
More important to me is whether there’s a significant number of MPs within the Conservative Party who deny that man-made climate change is even occurring.
An example, policy motion 1 says “A is always more important than B”
Policy motion 1 is rejected.
Does that really mean that Party now has policy that “B is always more important than A”?
I think it just means that A is not always to be regarded as more important than B.
Too late … (sigh)
“CCF, the party *did not* vote that tax cuts should have a higher priority than action on global warming”
What I said – for the fourth time – was that the party voted against global warming having a higher priority than tax cuts, which is no more than a statement of fact.
Actually they voted against reduction in overall levels of public expenditure being a lower priority than “measures to reduce inequality in British society”.
Mark, are you not going to publish all (or at least more) of the e-mail string?
Anthony wrote:
“Actually they voted against reduction in overall levels of public expenditure being a lower priority than “measures to reduce inequality in British society”.”
If you’re implying climate change wasn’t in the amendment, you’re quite wrong. I posted the text above.
Here it is again:
This is the wording of the amendment that was defeated at the party conference:
“Conference further resolves that any reduction in overall levels of public expenditure should be a lower priority than measures to reduce inequality in British society, improving public services, including in particular health, education, child care and public transport, and making the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change.”
[my emphasis]
Why is Lib Dem Voice fast becoming Conservative Voice? You should concentrate on Lib Dem policies/internal workings, not be obssed with a certain other party
He with no brain – are you seriously suggesting that there’s not enough debate on LDV about our own direction?
Have you seen any other pages aside from this one?
CCF,
you are getting hysterical in your desire to denounce and proclaim.
I agree that you may not be inaccurate to draw this inference on face value, but the content of the debate should have set you right on that score.
I think the point is in the interpretation of the word ‘priority’, of which some people will always try to unfairly suggest this is to exclusion of all else, while others will fairly suggest this is merely first on a long list.
I feel we were correct in rejecting use of the word as we have many priorities each of which we must emphasise equally, because ultimately everything is interlinked – standards in public life and education policy and taxation etc all have a bearing on the evironment and vice versa.
We have multiple equal priorities because ours is a coherent political vision in which all issues are inseparable.
*this thread is about the fact that the Conservatives don’t have a coherent or cohesive vision, while the comments show the opinions of our membership complements and reinforces our way of doing things.
“I agree that you may not be inaccurate to draw this inference on face value …”
I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but I am not drawing any inference.
What I said – for the fourth fifth time – was that the party voted against global warming having a higher priority than tax cuts, which is no more than a statement of fact.
I am starting to think lessons in basic English for the contributors to LDV should be the party’s number one priority!
That’s funny – I thought strike worked in the other thread about formatting.
It works in preview, but not in the final version!
Seeing as you know best on this and all else, CCF, why don’t you teach us?
Zac Goldsmith is the ideal man to lecture us on the environment, considering the amount of pollution he generates. The guy is a sixty-a-day mega-f*****e.
The Conference voted down an amendment that would have made cuts in public spending lower priority than increases in public spending in certain areas.
The Party did not vote against “global warming being a higher priority than tax cuts”. It rejected an amendment that said increasing public spending was always more important than reducing overall public spend where possible.
It’s entirely possible, and indeed highly likely, that someone could have voted against the amendment but still believe global warming is currently more important than tax cuts. Mainly because the crux of the amendment was actually about increasing/protecting public spending generally across lots of areas.
One can also, heaven forbid, actually think that there are ways of fighting climate change that don’t involve increasing public spending (without denying that there’s much that can be done by Governments).
Oranjepan:
“Seeing as you know best on this and all else, CCF, why don’t you teach us?”
I don’t suggest I “know best” on anything.
I just get a bit sick of people misrepresenting what I’ve said because they can’t read a simple sentence of English, even when it’s been posted five times.
PS I have it now:
<s> works in
previewbut not when posted.<strike> works both in
previewandwhen posted.“The Party did not vote against “global warming being a higher priority than tax cuts”. It rejected an amendment that said increasing public spending was always more important than reducing overall public spend where possible.”
What absolute rubbish. I’ve posted the text of the amendment twice now. Everyone can see what it said. But still you’re misrepresenting it!
Here it is for a third time:
“Conference further resolves that any reduction in overall levels of public expenditure should be a lower priority than measures to reduce inequality in British society, improving public services, including in particular health, education, child care and public transport, and making the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change.”
No resemblance to the nonsense you posted.
I think there’s only one person posting nonsense. As you say, everyone can see what it said – and I think the general silence on the topic (often the ultimate reaction to your posts) says it all.
CCF,
from having been a strong and informed critic you’ve started to allow yourself to be manoeuvered into a corner where you’re harping on and on and it becomes easier and easier to dismiss you as a sniper.
But if it angers you that the amendment was defeated, surely the reverse is also true – that you should be reassured our party is capable of proposing one in this form.
Party conferences are so stage managed these days that there is no chance any amendments in major debates will be moved if they place the party unity at risk.
The tone of the debate was charged because we all feel strongly about the issues it raised, but the content of the debate (despite this amendment) showed we are strongly united in what we want to achieve.
If you feel so strongly about these issues that you can’t let go of them then I suggest you would serve your ambitions better by rejoining the party and participating from the inside where you can make use of the party channels to have more influence.
Clearly we are all still on the same side, so perhaps we shouldn’t allow appearances and impressions to put us off quite so easily.
“I think the general silence on the topic (often the ultimate reaction to your posts) says it all.”
Strange how one person can perceive “general silence” when another is almost deafened by a chorus of inane wittering …
You know, CCF, while I’m always disappointed that anyone would prefer to exile themselves from our wonderful party when they are in such obvious agreement with us I’m suspicious that your attitude and general aggravation would be less helpful than any legwork you could put in.
But please keep up the commentary, it’s both informative and entertaining to know you what you’re going to come up with next.
“… I’m suspicious that your attitude and general aggravation would be less helpful than any legwork you could put in.”
You really never tire of holding forth on subjects you know absolutely nothing about, do you?
So you don’t permit me an opinion and you aren’t prepared to offer any alternatives.
Good luck with that!
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at, but I’m reasonably sure it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
If you’re determined to pursue your vacuous speculations about my relationship with colleagues in my local party, why not write an imaginative article on the subject, and try to get LDV to publish it?
Grammar Police
“There are all sorts of reasons to vote down an amendment to a motion at conference; only one of which is because you actually feel the opposite.”
Technically you’re correct. But don’t you feel a slight sense of shame that you hang your argument on a technicality like this?
If we are to cut state spending, in part to give away free money to the public, how on earth are we to fund a tiny fraction of the famous “Apollo programme” of investment on insulation and renewable energy?
We can’t. We are now falling into line with the Labour and Tory parties. That is, we talk a very good talk about the need to save the planet, some time like 2050. Like St Augustine, we wish to repent of our sins, but not yet. We do not actually plan to take effective action now. That is when it is needed.
But don’t worry, you have found a technical flaw in CCF’s analysis. You have shown that the truth he is telling has not been correctly proved in a logically rigorous way. Bravo!
Dave Allen:
“You have shown that the truth he is telling has not been correctly proved in a logically rigorous way.”
Not you too!
I’ll say it again – what I said was simply that there had been a debate at conference about whether action on global warming should have a higher priority than tax cuts, and that the party had voted that it shouldn’t.
Really – unless people are going to pretend that a majority would have backed the amendment if it had mentioned only climate change and not social inequality as well, or are going to try to make a spurious distinction between cutting overall government spending and cutting taxes – what I said should be a simple, uncontroversial statement of fact about what happened at conference.
The fact that people have been queueing up to insist it didn’t happen – and to back up that insistence with the usual volley of sarcasm, misrepresentation and personal attacks – is both revealing and disturbing.
David Allen; my argument is based on a ‘technicality’ because CCF’s ‘truth’ is based on a series of assumptions about voting reps’ intentions that I don’t think he can support. With the rejection of the amendment, the policy is actually now silent on the priority between tax cuts and environmental action.
You say:
“You have shown that the truth he is telling has not been correctly proved in a logically rigorous way.”
Isn’t that the point? He’s not proved anything at all; he’s just using his disappointment with the party, and the resulting assumptions he’s making, to back up what he wants to believe, because it apparently justifies his negative attitude.
The arguments made at conference were that our spending priorities would be met before any attempt to reduce the overall Government spend. The paper however, sets down a marker that we see benefit in giving more back to low and middle income earners and will do it where possible.
You’re quite right to point out the party needs to fund it’s Apollo programme. And they should be criticised if they don’t, but let’s not pretend that Make It Happen in the form it was passed will prevent that.
And CCF, as for wittering; at least 50% of it, possibly more, is your own voice!! ;o)
CCF, my sarcasm has eluded you. Your opponents are just playing with words. Of course it is the reality that the conference decision meant a downplaying of our emphasis on climate change. For your opponents to argue in the way they are doing is just pointless nitpicking over the technicalities.
Grammar Police
For the umpteenth time, I am not trying to “prove” anything. I am making a simple statement of fact about what happened at conference.
It was proposed in the amendment that cutting overall public expenditure should have a lower priority than action on climate change and social inequality. Conference voted that it shouldn’t.
Surely that is undeniable?
The important thing is that this email exchange shows that anyone who thinks the Tories would prioritise tackling Climate Change more than the Lib Dems is frankly completly delueded. The Lib Dems have by far the most coherant green policies of any of the major parties and the Make it Happen debate has not changed this one bit.
CCF, I agree that the party did not vote in favour of the amendment that:
the “reduction in overall levels of public expenditure should be a lower priority than measures to reduce inequality in British society, improving public services, including in particular health, education, child care and public transport, and making the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change”.
What I don’t agree is that this is the same as
“the party voted against global warming having a higher priority than tax cuts” – as you claimed at 12.04pm.
As David Allen points out in rather sneering terms, the former doesn’t necessarily mean the latter. And although he thinks that’s semantics I think it’s actually about CCF finding a “fact” based on a series of assumptions.
I voted against the amendment because, I don’t agree that (a) public spending is the only way to reduce inequality or tackle climate change (although it’s obviously a key way of doing so); (b) it set a marker that I disagreed with, or at least one that could be characterised as high tax and spend; and ( c) why tie our Party’s hands on this one way, it’s not as if any attempt was being made to tie it the other. I’m not dogmatic.
As for David Allen’s other point – I am not CCF’s opponent. Nor do I see myself as such. I think CCF is wrong, but I think he’s wrong on a lot of things, and I think this is largely because he’s fed up with the Party and doesn’t give it the benefit of any doubt. Ever.
Still, it’s important to have one’s views challenged, it points out flaws in one’s own argument/assumptions, the occasional sloppy thinking we’re all guilty of.
Grammar Police
Look, if you’re quibbling about the fact that the amendment specified spending cuts rather than tax cuts, or about the fact that it didn’t just mention climate change, but social inequality as well – not that I’m at all clear whether that is what you’re quibbling about – I’m happy to revise my statement as follows:
“It was proposed in the amendment that cutting overall public expenditure should have a lower priority than action on climate change and social inequality. Conference voted that it shouldn’t.”
If you’re going to claim that’s not true, you’d better explain why.
“the conference decision meant a downplaying of our emphasis on climate change…[in favour of tax cuts]”
This would be accurate if it weren’t for the fact that it is being played out agianst the backdrop of our taxation agenda which connects and combines environmental action with increased fairness and economic benefits.
This was the thrust of the Green Tax Switch which we’ve been pushing for several years now and informs our present thinking on the MIH tax shift.
By arguing for cuts in government spending in areas which intrude on our civil liberties, don’t work and compound waste we enhance our green credentials.
By balancing these cuts with commitments to our other priorities we show our fiscal responsibility and foresight in a way that works.
Our tax agenda actually provides the mechanism without which we would be mouthing warm words.
What’s not to like?
It may not be common sense, but it makes good sense!
So these are actually Green Tax Cuts?
I must admit I hadn’t actually realised that.
cut&pasted from the party website:
“How the Green Tax Switch works:
* We will give everyone a green income tax cut of 4p giving people more of their hard-earned money in their pocket.
* We will then increase green taxes as a share of national income. (Green taxes have fallen from 3.6% of GDP in 1999 to just 2.7% of GDP in 2006). The more people switch their behaviour, the more of the tax cut they will save.
* We will keep rises in fuel duty in line with growth to ensure there is always an incentive to save fuel.
* We will abolish Airport Taxes, which tax each passenger, and instead we will tax each plane that takes off on its emissions. This would reward full flights and penalise half-empty ones.
* We will raise Vehicle Excise Duty on the most polluting cars to £2000, and have lower bands to reward clean cars. We will also provide help for rural drivers where cars are essential due to the lack of public transport.
* We will reform the Climate Change Levy as a tax on carbon across the economy, so that the true cost of any bad impact on the environment is reflected in the price paid.
* We will tighten allocations in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and auction 10% of the permits. The recent fall in the price of carbon for industrial users reflects the unambitious overall cap set by the EU.”
CCF I’m not quibbling about your recent statement nor making any of the linguistic somersaults you seem to be suggesting.
I just don’t think that the failure of the amendment to pass is the same as “the party voted against global warming having a higher priority than tax cuts” – as you claimed above. (I think if people had actually been given *that choice*, the Party would have voted in favour of it).
And to get back to the original topic, can you imagine a Lib Dem MP denying that man-made climate change was not happening?
So you believe that the amendment would have been passed if it had read:
“Conference further resolves that any reduction in overall levels of public expenditure should be a lower priority than the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change.”
Why on earth didn’t you say that in the first place?
Oranjepan
Yes, of course I know about the Green Tax Switch.
But I thought for a moment you were suggesting the additional proposed tax cuts were also Green in some sense.
CCF,
If you can’t read the first line I quoted then I can’t help you- whatever your protestations. The changes are not additional, they are just one part of our comprehensive package of proposals.
You seem intent on imcreasingly mindless attacks beyond any attempts at comprehension for some reason which you cannot properly articulate despite repeated attempts on our behalf to get you to do so.
At least in the Conservative party arguments only arise where there is a real difference of opinion, not just the impression of one!
Hey, did I miss CCF leaving the party? Is this true?
Oranjepan
I’m sorry, but what you copied and pasted all relates to the Green Tax Switch policy which was adopted by the party some time ago under Ming Campbell.
In your previous message, when you said, “By arguing for cuts in government spending in areas which intrude on our civil liberties, don’t work and compound waste we enhance our green credentials” you seemed to be talking about the additional cuts in tax and spending that have been proposed under Nick Clegg.
If that’s not what you were referring to, by all means try to explain. But why be personally abusive? Is this now just a reflexive reaction to people you disagree with, or even to people who are puzzled by things in your posts that are unclear?
No, I think it is easy to be unclear about our proposals when our dear leader tries his damnest to skip around this point (including during PMQs this week when challenged on exactly this point by Brown after his first intervention AND in his supporting article in the Guardian).
From what I can understand of it all, if you’ll bear with me, is that this isn’t a set of policies which can all be introduced in one tranche, but would be progressively implemented one stage at a time to ensure there are no massive budgetary or administrative shocks.
Seeing as we are still some way from a LibDem govt, it is certainly excessive to demand full details of the exact manner of policy execution at this time – isn’t it enough to know the policy goals, the general mechanisms and the paarameters within which we would work (this is far more than a prospective Cameron regime has yet offered)?
I’ll admit that it sometimes seems like we have to work out for ourselves how to join the dots, but aren’t you forgetting that Clegg was part of Campbell’s team of bright young talent which came up with these proposals?
Alix,
IIRC CCF admitted as much as this, yes, but it escapes me whether it was Clegg’s election itself or whether it was some particular policy announcement which he pinpointed as his excuse/reason.
“IIRC CCF admitted as much as this, yes, but it escapes me whether it was Clegg’s election itself or whether it was some particular policy announcement which he pinpointed as his excuse/reason.”
You seem to be under the bizarre misconception that I have taken a violent dislike to the party for no reason at all, and am now going round inventing disagreements with party policy to justify it.
Do you find it so hard to understand that a long-standing party member could have a strong objection to the party’s change of direction in the past few years? Or that the fact that the party is now focusing all its attention on cutting taxes could be an adequate reason to leave the party?
On the Green Tax Switch, why it’s a great policy, and why on its own it’s not enough:
Yes, a lot of good can be achieved by a free market mechanism. The use of tax penalties and incentives can shift the balance of advantage for the market investor. For example, investment could be switched from air to rail, if the companies investing were clear that they would make more money from rail, given our policy of taxing carbon emissions.
It’s almost a pain-free sugar-coated solution, as far as it goes. You get real change without (much) sacrifice. The idea of giving all the green tax receipts straight back to the taxpayer was an inspired one, knocking the “you’re just imposing a stealth tax” argument right on its head.
But.
It won’t do everything for us. It won’t do things like building acres of wind farms, in preference to coal or nuclear power plant. Wind farms cost more. A lot more. That has to be paid for. If we want it, we really have to get the taxpayer to pay, one way or another. Nothing else will work. We can’t possibly do that while we cut taxes overall.
That is what clearly upsets CCF, and makes him (and me) rather unimpressed at arguments which seek to differentiate between whether Conference explicitly voted to give climate change a lower priority, or merely voted for something which would mean that in practice.
And yes, he gets a great tirade of unreasoning abuse. I’m sure it is unpleasant. As I watch it from the sidelines, I can take a more detached view. My reaction, when CCF gets more and more abuse, is “It’s getting under their skins! So we must be winning the argument!”
Anyone who would like a free copy of my new DVD “Straight Talking on Climate Change” should e-mail [email protected], or write to me at 9 Prospect Court, Courteenhall Road, Blisworth, Northamptonshire NN7 3DG
“It won’t do everything for us. It won’t do things like building acres of wind farms, in preference to coal or nuclear power plant. Wind farms cost more. A lot more. That has to be paid for. If we want it, we really have to get the taxpayer to pay, one way or another. Nothing else will work. We can’t possibly do that while we cut taxes overall.”
I got the impression from the “Apollo Mission” speech that it was all going to be funded by this “feed-in tariff” mechanism, which – if I understood correctly – means that electricity companies would be legally obliged to buy a certain proportion of their energy from renewable sources, at higher prices – the cost being passed on to the consumer.
As was pointed out at the time, this really amounts to a tax by any other name, and again it would be an indirect tax. Effectively, the Apollo Mission would be paid for by raising people’s fuel bills. That seems to sit very awkwardly with Clegg’s often-stated concerns about fuel poverty.
I am delighted that Clegg has a candid friend, and he should listen to his sensible advice. As to global warming, we have still got a lot to learn. The debate is not over by any means. To see for yourslef come and visit the climate science blog.
Bugger, just lost the first go at this to a backspace key.
My reaction, when CCF gets more and more abuse, is “It’s getting under their skins! So we must be winning the argument!”
I feel that you have misunderstood the basic facts about Internet debate, and specifically about the form of debate that you’re advocating. When you debate on a Devils Advocate basis in an aggressive and angry tone, you are not normally held up as an example of glorious debate and respected. You are usually thrown off of the forum in question as a Troll – the annoying poster that keeps making arguments that are not only off topic, as they are here, but are making said arguments as a specific means to annoy and harangue others for their own personal amusement.
Now, to the discussion. 🙂
CCF, I struggle to understand your basic foundations. I am very sure that you’re upset about Clegg being our leader (although that’s somewhat of a lengthy grudge) and I’m also very sure that you’re angry about what you perceive as a new tax cutting route for party policy. I am not so sure about why you decided to air your dirty laundry here. From what you’re constantly quoting as your only piece of evidence, I am reading as the result of that defeated amendment – “Conference has decided that the commitment to reducing taxes is just about the same priority as our commitments to better schools, better hospitals, reducing inequality and tackling climate change.” If you have no better evidence for your argument, I think you’d better concede defeat in this topic.
Huw:
“When you debate on a Devils Advocate basis in an aggressive and angry tone, you are not normally held up as an example of glorious debate and respected. You are usually thrown off of the forum in question as a Troll – the annoying poster that keeps making arguments that are not only off topic, as they are here, but are making said arguments as a specific means to annoy and harangue others for their own personal amusement.”
Since I am not posting as a devil’s advocate, and I am not annoying and haranguing others for my own amusement, I fail to see the relevance of these comments.
As for what you see as an “angry and aggressive tone”, that generally comes in only after people have misrepresented what I have said about ten times (literally). And as you don’t mention all the aggression and abuse coming in the other direction, it seems to me your comments are rather unbalanced.
And I do find it incredible that (presumably after reading at least some of the foregoing discussion), you again claim I am making some kind of “argument” that can be “defeated” by your interpretation of what the vote on the amendment implied.
I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to repeat this, but I am simply making a statement of fact about what happened at conference. Here’s the revised version again:
“It was proposed in the amendment that cutting overall public expenditure should have a lower priority than action on climate change and social inequality. Conference voted that it shouldn’t.”
If you want to discuss the general issue of the party focusing all its attention on tax cuts, of course there is ample evidence about that from Clegg’s speeches and interviews. But I don’t think this thread is really the place for the more general discussion.
David Allen: “And yes, he gets a great tirade of unreasoning abuse. I’m sure it is unpleasant. As I watch it from the sidelines, I can take a more detached view. My reaction, when CCF gets more and more abuse, is “It’s getting under their skins! So we must be winning the argument!”
Although I’m not sure CCF does get a lot of “abuse”; he gives as good as he gets, often more so, and usually first. ;o)
As for winning the argument, the irony being that I suspect most people assume trolling when they see alternate names so many times in the comments box at the top of LDV and don’t bother to read. Either that or they see so many comments they can’t be bothered to read – especaially when it’s not even on the topic.
Grammar Police:
“Although I’m not sure CCF does get a lot of “abuse”; he gives as good as he gets, often more so, and usually first. ;o)”
Well, if I am sometimes rather blunt in my comments, it is almost always in response to people repeatedly misrepresenting what I have written – as you did above.
In the discussion above, though, it’s rather clear who originated the personal stuff. Almost immediately you started coming out with comments like “nothing the party does is right as far as you’re concerned”, “it’s always handbags at dawn with CCF” (!) and “you want to believe the worst of the Party because it justifies your deliberately disgruntled outlook”.
It makes me wonder what’s so hard about simply discussing the issues. But I suppose it’s always easier to “play the man” rather than the ball.
Well, I did only say “usually first” dear CCF. ;o).
I think someone who has as “blunt” a writing style as you should expect similar responses; largely on both sides out of frustration, I’m sure.
What’s so “hard about simply discussing the issues” is that as far as you appear to be concerned, people fail to understand what you’ve said even when you consider it straightforward or obvious; or else they are (deliberately) misrepresenting you. This is something I’ve seen you say about a number of people who post on here, about a number of topics. For whatever reason, some of us find it difficult to engage with you in debate. This leads to frustration on all sides, and I think probably explains your “bluntness” and certainly my mild sarcasm.
For me, it’s usually because I actually do disagree about the assumptions you are making/are hinting at in your initial posts. My interpretation is sometimes of subtleties that you don’t feel exist, and so it doesn’t surprise me that you feel I focus on technicalities.
Now please don’t bite my head off. If nothing else, let’s just agree to disagree.
CCF I think you are more guilty of misrepresenting the party’s position that Grammar Police or anyone else is of misrepresenting yours.
Your have spent the whole thread completely blind to the fact that just because the party didn’t vote for the amendment on Make it Happen doesn’t mean the party supports the total opposite. There was nothing in Make it Happen saying that tax cuts would be a higher priority than measures to reduce inequality in British society, improving public services, including in particular health, education, child care and public transport, and making the urgent investments needed to tackle accelerating climate change.
Grammar Police
I’m afraid your latest post is a case in point.
I said you had misrepresented me. You inserted the word “deliberately”, which I hadn’t used, and which changes the meaning of the statement and makes it look unreasonable.
Unlike some people, I don’t claim to be a mind-reader. I can’t tell whether the misrepresentation is deliberate or not. But this is precisely what makes it so difficult to have a sensible discussion.
CCF, please don’t misunderstand me – I included the word “deliberately” in brackets because I think that you aren’t sure if any “misrepresentation” is deliberate or not – you at least think it’s a possibility.
As you say you’re not sure if misrepresentation is deliberate or not in your latest post, I stand by what I said.
Peter1919
“… just because the party didn’t vote for the amendment on Make it Happen doesn’t mean the party supports the total opposite”
As I have said over and over and over again, I haven’t claimed “the party supports the total opposite”.
I say this seriously. It is truly frightening that so many people cannot understand what is said in simple, plain English.
I feel there’s a lot in what Grammar Police says on this specific point – it is a characteristic of CCF that when people disagree with his opinion on a statement, or an event, his default assumption is that they have poor comprehension skills not to see things the precise same way he does (a periodically repeated charge). The fact that they might, say, interpret a series of events differently, or believe that a different emphasis should be read into a statement (such as is the case with this thread), does not always seem to occur to CCF.
And it is, of course, perfectly reasonable to place different interpretations and emphases on things, as I’m sure we would all agree. I think David Allen reads CCF as being someone merely putting his own view forward, and possibly doesn’t see that CCF also appears to insist on his own view being the “correct” one. This, when the matter in hand is largely about interpretation, will naturally lead to conflict.
Grammar Police
Sorry to be blunt, but if you think putting a word in parentheses expresses doubt as to whether it is applicable or not, you really do need a lesson in basic English.
This stuff just gets more and more ludicrous.
No, Alix.
You need to read the foregoing discussion.
I said simply that the party had voted that cutting expenditure should not have lower priority than climate change.
In response, people queued up to claim I had said that the party had voted that cutting expenditure should have higher priority than climate change. And despite the fact that I’ve now pointed out the fallacy about twenty times, they are still queueing up.
That is poor comprehension of basic English, albeit with a large measure of perverse obstinacy thrown in.
CCF: “This stuff just gets more and more ludicrous.”
Indeed, CCF, indeed.
Parentheses may also be used to represent options.
I invite CCF to reconsider GP’s sentence: “For me, it’s usually because I actually do disagree about the assumptions you are making/are hinting at in your initial posts. My interpretation is sometimes of subtleties that you don’t feel exist, and so it doesn’t surprise me that you feel I focus on technicalities.”
This seems to me to very neatly characterise the nature of the argument you’ve had here, and also offers an explicit olive branch. If we can agree that CCF does not know whether people deliberately misinterpret him or not, and that GP did not mean to imply that he does think they deliberately misinterpret him, surely the matter can rest there?
CCF,
I find it interesting that you claim not to be making any argument and only wish to make a statement of fact – so why do you make it repeatedly unless you are trying to make some point?
I don’t feel I am under any misconception at all about your critical stance towards our party, I am completely ignorant of your reasons for not continuing with your membership and I keep trying to get you to explain your reasons.
Your participation here indicates you still consider yourself generally supportive but would prefer to be satisfied one way or the other that we are either a lost cause or a potential answer to our shared problems.
But there are no lost causes if you keep on contributing and with more people contributing more we will be all the more closer to the correct solutions.
It is like David Allen says – what we have is good, but it is not enough because good is not good enough.
I don’t accept the accusation that the party has changed direction in the past few years, nor do I accept that any mistakes we’ve made can’t be recovered.
I think it is an absolute myth that we are focusing all our attentions on tax cutting, merely that the subject of state revenue has become the central issue of current debate now that the country has entered a recession. Is the environment now subordinate to financial recovery? It may indeed appear that way, but this depends on what the current strategy is.
I don’t think we’ve subordinated the environment to financial competence – I think we’ve adopted an overly defensive strategy which has stopped publicly connecting the two out of a sense of urgent imperative.
I disagree with you that we’ve abandoned our principles or our rationale and I therefore think any reasons you have for leaving the party are not only inadequate but also completely misfounded, however I am in sympathy with your position that I think this defensive strategy is not an election winner – clearly it has managed to influence you negatively!
David Allen,
please could you differentiate between tax-payers and bill-payers.
Taxes are compulsory and less discriminating, while bills can be influenced by your behavioural choices.
Yes, we can cut taxes overall and pay for the huge levels of investment in environmental energy resourcing. This requires a redistribution of household budgets into discretionary expenditure and will thereby free up personal freedom to make better choices.
Of course the state needs to do some pump-priming, such as by regulating the rates of feed-in tariffs, but the business of government is not to interfere in industry only to encourage/enforce positive direction and good management.
Alix,
OK, there is lots of unpleasant abuse flying around in this thread, both from CCF and from his ratpack of detractors. Let’s go back to the top, shall we, and see who started it all.
Grammar Police 3 Nov 10.31am:
“CCF, it’s well-known that nothing the party does is right as far as you’re concerned (even a democratic vote of it’s members)”
Pretty sneering, yes?
CCF at 11.13:
“Please just read properly what I actually wrote.”
Mildly peeved, but no worse.
Grammar Police at 11.41:
“it’s always handbags at dawn with CCF, he just can’t leave anything,”
” I know that you want to believe the worst of the Party because it justifies your deliberately disgruntled outlook, but please.”
Yet more obnoxious sarcasm! To which CCF showed irritation, but no worse, with: “What I said – for the fourth time – was that…”
Next up was Oranjepan: “CCF, you are getting hysterical”
Then at last at 2.50 CCF, with:
“I am starting to think lessons in basic English for the contributors to LDV”
finally said something which was, yes, mildly abusive. After receiving five pieces of abuse directed against him, and having responded with equanimity to each of the first four. Yes, it degenerated into a brawl after that. I think it’s pretty clear who was responsible. We should all congratulate CCF on his patience.
“… I am completely ignorant of your reasons for not continuing with your membership and I keep trying to get you to explain your reasons.”
Sorry, but if you can’t work it out from the content of my posts, you’ll just have to remain “completely ignorant”.
Oranjepan:
“Yes, we can cut taxes overall and pay for the huge levels of investment in environmental energy resourcing. This requires a redistribution of household budgets into discretionary expenditure and will thereby free up personal freedom to make better choices.”
What does that actually mean? The energy consumer will end up paying?
David,
you may need to find a way to differentiate between abuse and fair comment.
CCF,
I’ve read your reasons and have debunked them. So unless you are confused I am ignorant and the onus is on you, and if you are confused it becomes understandable why you are actively spreading confusion – perhaps instead you could offer some constructive criticism.
CCF,
you mean you want everybody else to save the planet and you want us to do it for free?
David, I wasn’t really trying to get at “who abused who first”. That’s a game we all lose at one time or another, CCF as me as Grammar Police. My point was just that CCF often associates opinions that are different to his own with a lack of comprehension skills. This is something he often seems to say. That is all.
Oranjepan:
“I’ve read your reasons and have debunked them …”
Oh. I must have missed that.
But seriously, you must realise that political belief is a matter of opinion. As I said above, there is no “correct” political opinion. To say you’ve “debunked” my reasons for leaving the party – which are simply the policy disagreements I’ve often expressed here – is very peculiar. All you actually mean is that you’ve disagreed with them!
“CCF,
you mean you want everybody else to save the planet and you want us to do it for free?”
Here we go again. Did I really say that? I could have sworn I just asked you what you meant.
I think I’d better stop wasting my time here.
CCF,
either you are supportive and wish to be constructive or you aren’t and don’t. It really is that simple. I hope you feel you feel you’ve made the most of your abilities here.
The two points of “unpleasant abuse” I am apparently guilty of David, I stand by. From numerous debates with CCF, I think he is often too harsh on the Party. I’m sure he feels I’m too much of a loyalist.
As for the handbags comment (gosh, horror, “obnoxious scarcasm”), it perhaps reads differently in context?
“[Responding to Hugh Dawson who’d suggested handbags at dawn as a way to resolve the debate] Yes, indeed, a green leather handbag for me. I like the colour. And it’s always handbags at dawn with CCF, he just can’t leave anything, and sadly I often rise to the bait.”
Weary resignation and taking the p*ss out of myself a bit and the whole debate I’m in.
Alix:
“My point was just that CCF often associates opinions that are different to his own with a lack of comprehension skills. This is something he often seems to say. That is all.”
If you want to discuss this, can you please be concrete, rather than coming out with this kind of vague innuendo? Do you agree with what I said in my message at 12.26, or not? If not, why not?
Oranjepan:
“… either you are supportive and wish to be constructive or you aren’t and don’t. It really is that simple.”
Obviously I need to be sent to a re-education camp or something.
The party really has changed, hasn’t it?
CCF,
perhaps you could live up to your monicker and be slightly more candid rather than projecting accusations of innuendo.
It is also noticeable how you disregard individual grammar and ignore any contextualisation in preference for confirmation of your own preconcieved ideas – this doesn’t assist efforts at communication, and which brings us back to the problems inside the Conservative party _whispers_ which was the topic of this thread.
“David,
you may need to find a way to differentiate between abuse and fair comment.”
Got it! Everything that follows the party line is fair comment, everything else is abuse.
perhaps you’d enjoy lecturing at this reeducation camp of yours.
“It is also noticeable how you disregard individual grammar and ignore any contextualisation in preference for confirmation of your own preconcieved [sic] ideas”
Come again?
DA,
was that sarcasm – I’m a bit thick, y’see, so you’ll need to explain this to me.
CCF,
I’m sure we’ve met in real life – tell me ain’t so…
Alix,
“David, I wasn’t really trying to get at “who abused who first”. …. My point was … (attacks CCF for his abusive behaviour)”
Well, it matters who abused who first. If a ratpack of loyalists repeatedly rubbish everything you say in an abusive and unreasonable way, you are going to get peeved, and you are may well start saying silly things yourself. If someone like Alix then comes along and spots the mote in your eye, while ignoring the beams in the eyes of all your opponents, well….!
By the way, if anyone can give me a serious explanation of how Nick Clegg’s Apollo Mission would be funded – or if anyone has any idea how much it’s going to cost – I would be interested.
(This isn’t an invitation to the “loyalist rat-pack” to aim more abuse in my direction, by the way. If they tried really hard to respond politely, even though we don’t share the same political beliefs, they might even find it was good practice for canvassing!)
CCF,
interesting that you’ve now decided to change track and play the victim. I also don’t recognise much partisan loyalism existing round here as we all have specific crticisms in different areas.
However to answer your question it is necessary to explain that funding occurs in two stages.
Firstly, ‘energy independence’ implies that it will pay for itself over the long term, while linking the plan to reductions in energy wastage suggests that it would be incremental as efficiencies create savings which can be split between reinvestment and price cuts.
All of which explains why he appears on first glance to lack ambition in the capability to achieve the goal of independence before 2050.
Friends of the Earth seem to agree on the sustainability of Clegg’s plan.
Personally I happen to quite like the idea of a minimalist state using the mechanisms already at its disposal to take a lead in indicating a direction which thereby enables good practise to snowball without dictating to the industry. If the regulator gets beefed up as a result then this will be in all our interests.
But I guess this is possibly too subtle and light-touch for many people to grasp, so again I don’t think there are lots of votes in the proposal.
Well if Labour can claim that new nuclear power stations can be developed without state subsidy I think we can safely claim the same for Renewables
Clegg’s Candid Friend said “This isn’t an invitation to the “loyalist rat-pack” to aim more abuse in my direction”
Man, you really are unbelievable. You obviously wouldn’t know abuse if it jumped up and down in front of you.
David, on “abusing first” Mr Friend has been “peeved” ever since he’s posted on this site – there’s more history than this thread. I don’t blame those people who find him frustrating.
“Firstly, ‘energy independence’ implies that it will pay for itself over the long term, while linking the plan to reductions in energy wastage suggests that it would be incremental as efficiencies create savings which can be split between reinvestment and price cuts.”
I don’t follow that at all. The efficiency savings proposed in the policy paper would cut energy consumption, but that’s a saving to the consumer, not the provider. In fact, it must be financially detrimental to the provider, even though it’s good for the planet.
Surely fuel prices will have to go up, not down?
Clegg’s Candid Friend’s Candid Friend:
“David, on “abusing first” Mr Friend has been “peeved” ever since he’s posted on this site – there’s more history than this thread.”
Actually, what’s been happening “ever since I posted on this site” is that people have been responding to my attempts to discuss policy with ad hominem attacks like yours. You are only proving the point.
If there’s a lesson to be learnt from this frankly unedifying exchange, it is, I would suggest, that it’s just not enough to be blandly in favour of the green Utopia. We also need to have a realistic plan for getting there, and a commitment to spending (somehow or other!) what it wil cost.
My definition of the green Utopia is: We know that the oil will run out and the planet fry, whether in 20 years or 200 years, if we go on as we are doing. We will therefore take the necessary steps to establish an alternative energy, transport and built infrastructure, in time to avoid the worst consequences, and to enable us to go on living with something like our current materials standards. Or at least, to go on living without the total collapse of our civilisation just like the Maya. (Odds in favour of the Western world achieving that, by the way, people? About 2 to 1 against, I would suggest.)
The green tax switch will help us use market economics to shift investment in the right direction. But it won’t solve everything. Some other mechanism will be needed to get enough investment into activities that cannot be profitable, or at least can’t be profitable until there is really no oil left and so prices belatedly shoot into the stratosphere. The bottom line is, we need to pay for it.
That mechanism could be tax and spend, in which case we pay pretty directly. Or it could be regulating or directing (or renationalising!) what the energy companies do, and we then let them charge us the costs instead. Or it could be a more market-based mechanism (such as carbon taxes) which will persuade energy companies to spend more money, and then get it back from their customers.
We could have a fascinating intellectual debate about the merits of these alternative mechanisms. But first and foremost, we surely just have to find the political will to acknowledge that there is a big cost. If we don’t have that will, then OK, let’s cede priority to the Greens, who certainly do.
It seems to me that whatever you make of the famous Conference decision, an insistence on the primacy of the green Utopia, and on our planet’s desperate need to achieve it, was conspicuous by its absence!
And just to be fair, CCF’s comment that “Effectively, the Apollo Mission would be paid for by raising people’s fuel bills. That seems to sit very awkwardly with Clegg’s often-stated concerns about fuel poverty.” ironically conveys a rather similar message. That is, a lack of real enthusiasm for the green Utopia.
How green are we – really?
Like most things in life, that’s a matter of interpretation.
CCF,
How is consumption necessarily environmentally damaging? Waste, yes. But consumption?
With a transition to cleaner energy resources per unit production costs are reduced – a saving to providers which can be managed to enable payment for initial investments and additional investor dividends simultaneously.
By maintaining production levels and reducing waste prices will fall and growth will be stimulated.
Result: consumer wins, provider gets a double win, state wins and the proponent political party wins.
However, there is a striking risk in all this as it is completely dependent on the ability of the industry to successfully manage the transition, which requires coherent regulation and a strong regulator.
The responsibility to make the transition and to enable all sides to win lies with the government to build this coherent framework and to prevent tying the hands of any of the actors in the industry.
You really need to get away from this zero-sum mindset.
Oranjepan:
“With a transition to cleaner energy resources per unit production costs are reduced – a saving to providers which can be managed to enable payment for initial investments and additional investor dividends simultaneously.”
I still don’t understand what you’re saying. Surely not that renewable energy is cheaper to produce than what we’re consuming now, as things stand?
David:
“And just to be fair, CCF’s comment that “Effectively, the Apollo Mission would be paid for by raising people’s fuel bills. That seems to sit very awkwardly with Clegg’s often-stated concerns about fuel poverty.” ironically conveys a rather similar message. That is, a lack of real enthusiasm for the green Utopia.”
No – what I am questioning is how the cost is going to be shared out. I am concerned that if it’s going to be done by raising the price of electricity, then that in effect is yet another rise in indirect taxation, which is going to hit the poorest in society. That’s what I’m not enthusiastic about.
CCF,
The question you pose is unrealistic as it assumes it is possible to make a comparison at today’s rates when you can’t magic the transition out of thin air.
Prices are likely to rise, at least in nominal terms, but the idea is that they will reduce as a proportion of household budgets.
You’re about to get bogged further down into a discussion about the desirability of inflation as a tool of change (and at what rate), which I don’t think can be objectively had at the current time – so I’m not sure it is a good line for you to try to take the discussion.
Oranjepan
But are you really saying renewable energy will be cheaper than conventional energy? Feel free to say “adjusted for inflation” if you want to, but is that really what you’re saying?
As I understand it, the ‘Apollo project’ is largely about energy independence: initially for Britain to reduce its energy imports to the EU before becoming completely energy independent. It appears to rest on two broad approaches – firstly to make the convential energy suppliers pay for improvements (insultation schemes and smart meters being two things, to help reduce usage and therefore reduce fuel poverty) and regulating to require protection for ‘vulnerable’ customers.
The second strand is investment in renewables and incentives. There seems to be little detail on this aspect in particular aspect. What I find particularly interesting about the plan is the intention to set up a body to develop the plan to meet targets on renewables. I’m not exactly keen on the setting up of new quangos, but it seems to recognise that we don’t have all the answers now.
CCF,
Yes, I see your point about how the cost is shared, and it’s a fair point … up to a point!
But if we all just debate forever how the cost should be shared, and use that as an excuse for not actually doing anything about climate change, then we’re not helping to save the planet, any more than the climate change deniers are!