Climate Change- The Beginning of decline and fall, and the end of the Enlightenment in British Parliamentary Politics.

Waugh’s quintessential novel depicts the down-ward spiral of the life of Mr. Pennyfeather who, having left behind common-sense at University, is marred with the frustrations of tutoring at a minor Public School. Though the novel principally flagellated and marred the minor Public School into the English psyche, its plot is a tempting metaphor for the effects of the current debates on climate change upon British politics.

Climate change is fascinating and disturbing for one clear reason: it reflects the fantastical, fanatical and dangerous truth that bottom-up politics still exists. That the media are the true purveyors of the public’s opinions and that their vintage liquor can not only immediately affect political discourse, but also vehemently soak through the agenda of policy. Take a step back from the rows over whether a particular approach or empirical outcome is veracious and deliberate over the overall methodology used to promote the debate. The first overreaching of reason is the following logic, expressed in general terms: That there does not need certain proof of a matter for it to take up Government time, and resource. Secondly, that it is now possible to contend that the greater the supposed harm of an issue, the more the requirement certainty of empirical proof can be over-reached. Taken to its logical conclusion, we enter into a new primitive approach to political agenda setting- namely that the more ‘hue and cry’ and ‘hyperventilation’ over an issue to which there is a supposed general, undefined harm, the greater the priority that issue should take. The fundamental risk this leaves us with is to undermine the very requirement of political agenda setting, and to falsely prioritise one or more issues over others, leaving important matters of Parliamentary consideration at the bottom of the heap. The Victorians tried very hard to iron this ‘shout and leap’ approach out of Parliamentary debates; though, one would concede, with mixed success. Note this following reflective passage in Anthony Trollope's 'The Prime Minister' concerning the debates regarding Irish home rule: 'Had some inscrutable decree of fate ordained and made it certain,- with a certainty not to be disturbed, that- no candidate could be returned to Parliament who would not assert the earth to be triangular, there would rise immediately a clamorous assertion of triangularity amongst political aspirants. The test would be an innocent one- candidates have swallowed and do swallow many a worse one'. A persistent Westminster problem that had to be overcome was that the more emotion an issue caused the more time it would take up in the house. This is where acute reason, one that does not seek harmony or concord on an issue to further expediency over legitimacy, is needed. I for one, (and this maybe an immense failing of mine) cannot recall a debate over legitimacy of this issue with respect to overall policy agenda. If this has occurred, then it is surprising to me that those who see questioning the validity of the issue do not raise this in counter-argument.

That man has an impact on his climate is by no means clear. Further, that man has ‘detrimental’ impact is no means clear, particularly as the word ‘detrimental’ here is primarily anthrocentric- yes life on this planet would not necessarily continue with respect to man, it not being implausible that some obscure aquatic specie might not benefit from supposed man made climatic changes. Then there are general arguments, sociological, not scientific that are ignored- society as it stands would have to change. It is not as if this would not happen anyway, but there is a strangely Delphic presumption that this would be harmful. What is and is not ‘harmful’ is not necessarily important to qualify, mere change to common behaviour and contemporaneous societal customs is enough. One could go one with the various oversimplifications and assumptions that lie in the heart of presuming the issue once the debate moves beyond science. Another key one that has been overlooked is the weakness of scientific methodology itself. That statistics fuelled scientific research is by its nature empirically questionable, that when one demonstrates a trend one has to, importantly, demonstrate the non-existence of a counter-trend. This latter issue is not placed at the heart of the debate, because it has not had to be as the agenda is set and the legitimacy of the issue is assumed. Thus the approach of presumption makes it harder, not easier, to vindicate any truth in the argument in the long-run. One obvious solution might be is to have a separate Parliamentary committee or body where the skeptics can put their own papers forward. Perhaps, only such an approach is fair and democratic.


APG Pandya
Copyright Birkenhead Society.

Revival of old Economic Theory to match these uncertain times is needed:

Labour has fluncked Britain’s economy, as much as Britain’s economy has flunked itself. The Government of course is only to blame if the huge rise in public spending, is related to the lack of credit in the markets. The link would have been clear to even the most disgruntled, asinine of economists twenty years ago: multiple raising of taxation, to slowly and surely dry the credit swamp. And credit swamp it was. When rebranded old-Labour first came into power in 1997 the economy was in a period of growth and there was a steady increase in working capital in the country to allow for a slow expansion of the market.

The problem today resulted from an acute ideological short-coming in the New Labour propoundment of the mythology of a socialist brand of commerce. In simple terms: that whilst Blair was pretending to show he loved business, his Party had never truly signed up to free-market ideology. It forgot about the premise of low taxation and more importantly that this premise should run through all areas of policy making and Government function. Au contraire, Labour’s post 1997 strategy was in tight fitting with much of its traditional socialist economic position: (i) tax and spend and (ii) oppose the free-market with increased cost associated regulation. The Tories, however, doing well in the polls are missing a trick here. Whilst current Shadow Treasury focus is to emphasise the deficit, and thus lay the ground for an agenda of cuts (which both mainstream parties have now conceded), they are not taking the opportunity to bring back free-market ideologues into the current economic discourse. It should be made clear to the City that Friedman style approaches to fiscal policy that resulted in an overall paradigm of growth in the 80s and 90s, shall once more become the mainstream- and there shall be a gradual claw-back of taxation on all fronts. Basic macro-economics will show a relationship between taxing the end of any line of consumption and the primary producer of credit: thus cutting tax on all fronts for a member of the public or corporations, will assist the lenders and the market as a whole. Excessive critiques of bankers should also be curtailed: the modern economy is credit based, and in large parts credit driven. Bankers are thus one of the cornerstone and first foundation stones of our economy. They turn its first wheel. We could do more than reflect on whether the fault lies with them or, more truly, with New Labour. As long as we have our modern economy and society, we will need them and their revival will be, in both short and medium term, the path to our economic recovery.


APG Pandya
Copyright Birkenhead Society.