What Cameron really needs to think about over Christmas is why he wants to be PM

Vulture

Has it occurred toi you James, that Cameron hasn't given the country a clear idea of why he should be Prime Minister because he doesn't have a clue himself? And isn't that the worst possible indictment of the heir to Blair?

DavidDP

"Too many people have been made to feel unloved. "

What is this, nursery school?

roman lee

there is one way cameron could lay out his stall and that is to say and keep saying, i will not lie to you like this lot and he could prove it by rebutting lies by labour as and when they tell them, this will be everytime they open there mouth but if he wants the job he better start mixing it. there is plenty to go at like "500000 jobs saved by the measures we have taken" or everything is the fault of everyone but brown. and by the way the people who will really elect you dont care a fig about the third world or global warming they only say they do because it sounds less heartless.

Greenback

"An increasing number of Tory MPs are not inclined to accept the political consensus on climate change; at Tory country-house gatherings, global warming scepticism has replaced Europe as the issue of the day."

It is not the "political consensuson global warming", it is the scientific consensus just like it is the scientific consensus that AIDS is linked to HIV. Now you may debate whether this is correct or incorrect by forwarding other hypotheses that can then be tested, but don't try to pull the wool over your reader's eyes by suggesting that this global warming thing is something that has been dreamed up by politicians it shows an incredible lack of respect for the intelligence of your readership.

Furthermore, I find it incredibly depressing the grassroots base of a mainstream political party should, as you suggest, have scepticism over global warming as their main concern when there are so many urgent issues like dealing with the global warming or any of the panoply of environmental disasters (water loss, biodiversity loss, soil erosion to name a few)as well as issues like public health, joblessness, two wars etc.

like a singer of whom your leader claims to be a fan once said;

"try living in the real world-instead of a shell"

David Bouvier

Greenback - I assume 'political consensus' refers to the roughly similar political stances the major parties take on policy issues, whether or not you agree on the science. Science to some extent informs these but there is not a one-to-one correspondence between sciences conclusions and policy conclusions.

For example, the distribution of the cost of reductions in CO2 output or adaptation, or the relative priority of global warming vs. public sector deficits in the next 5-10 years, are not scientific questions.

Anyway, that is by the by. If Cameron should try living in the real world, you should try seeing things other than from a single-issue point of view.

I think what was meant that AGW doubts have replaced 'bloody EU' as a conversational topic. Perhaps your house parties revolve around a careful review of government priorities and policy proposals, in proportion to the parliamentary time they should receive. Mine don't and I know which one would be more fun.

Greenback

Dear David,

Thank you for your informative words I am glad that my post has got a response.

Indeed there is a very worthwhile debate to be had as to how we deal with the effects of climate change-as you say-it is important that this is weighed up relative to the other priorities. Furthermore there is not really a political consensus on this. If we look at a local level-Ken Livingstone preferred using measures like congestion charging-Boris prefers to focus on other areas like buildings.

However it is clear from the words of Lord Lawson, David Davis and even more clear from the grassroots that this is not the debate that they are having. Their debate is over whether there is indeed such a thing as climate change-or if there is whether this is caused by people. Now this is a scientific debate and there is a pretty strong consensus from those who are experts in the field which personally I would tend to trust more on this issue than ex-politicians such as Lord Lawson, likewise I would trust an ex-chancellor more concerning the inner workings of government than I would a climate scientist.

Now would that my house parties should play host to such erudite discussions, unfortuantely my friends and I don't seem quite up to it. However I would hope that tory grassroots meetings would be capable of reasoned debate as they would like to have us believe that they are ready to run the country.

Finally regarding all environmental issues, what people must ask themselves is do they think that the world and its resources are finite-this is what it all comes down to and the answer is pretty obvious to me.