My husband tells a lovely story about his bleak nights clubbing in 1980s Peterborough. A group of lads in suits with a bottle of 20/20 in their top pocket would go out looking for a laugh, and women if they were lucky. They generally were not. My husband tells of a famous scene when one of their number saw a group of still unclaimed women in the corner. The club lights were coming on and everyone was forlornly trooping home. One optimistic mate locked eyes with one of the women, pushed his hands through his hair and made to stride across the dancefloor for a 2.30am attempt at seduction. He’d made no more than two steps when the woman swiftly raised her hand and shouted: “NO!” The optimist turned on his heel, rejoined his useless mates. The savage rejection scene became the stuff of lad legend.
I propose we adopt this wise woman’s approach to clearly unhinged public policy ideas. No consultations, no trials, no soft launches, no debates. When a drunk new policy makes a swaggering step onto the public stage we all just shout a loud and clear: “NO!”
No doubt you are as fed up as I am at the uselessly late newspaper columns suggesting the transing children / lockdown / furlough / extension of usual vicissitudes of life into mental health conditions / open borders / concrete tower blocks etc. may not have been such wise ideas after all. I’m thinking here of Matthew Syed (on the false compassion of an over-generous benefits system), Kirsty Allsop on trans, Rishi Sunak endlessly lying about trying to control immigration. It is all far too late. The damage has been done.
I have no doubt Matthew Syed, Kirsty Allsop and Rishi all knew instinctively and immediately that the various policies they helped to champion and tacitly supported by not speaking out against them were grade one stinking bullshit, but they were not brave enough to raise their hands and shout “NO!” until years after the event.
Imagine for a moment if that over-optimistic nightclub chancer was a public policy. The clear-sighted young woman would have been encouraged to override her instincts and listen to his sales pitch. Perhaps she would be encouraged to take him in for a ‘trial’ period. And if she didn’t like him, experts would have swung by to say, that actually, she needed to keep him because the evidence suggested he would eventually make an economic contribution to society. When it turned out he was indeed a desperate no-hoper, as the young woman had instinctively known, those advising her to take him on will first insult her, then disappear. Perhaps years later they might bravely emerge to suggest accepting a staggering drunk loser at 2.30am was not a good idea. They will write that lessons will be learned and leave her alone to pick up the pieces of her spoiled life.
As a society we all need to adopt the original and correct attitude of this astute young woman in the 1980s Peterborough nightclub. She could just see with one glance that the man in question was not to be entertained. We must follow her example and loudly shout “NO!” at whatever lunacy is next offered to us as an innovative public policy.
Think of these policies as a 1980s lad in a Peterborough nightclub, making an audacious stride across the dancefloor to some unsuspecting public. First taking to the dancefloor with a flick of the pink hair is: “Just stop oil.” No eminent meteorologists or examination of the charts of ice-core records are required for us to know immediately that just stopping oil is civilisational suicide. We raise our hands and shout all together: “NO!”
It’s an easy game to play, another public policy has a go. This time a gangly ugly fellow approaches the dance floor looking for pastures new. Onshore wind farms? They look horrible and don’t blow when it’s not windy: “NO!”
A cadaverous chap holding a sickle: euthanasia? “NO!”
A big fat sweaty bastard: even higher taxes for highest earners: “NO!”
Decriminalisation of abortion up to birth: “NO!”
Solar panels on farmland: “NO!”
Gender self ID: “NO!”
Lib Dem plan to make pensions ‘green’: “NO!”
Tony Blair’s return to Government under Starmer: “NO!”
Oh jeepers, he’s got across the dance floor…Tony Blair’s plans for Labour to forge closer ties with the EU: “NO!”
Penny Mordant as Tory leader: “NO!”
Legalisation of cannabis: “NO!”
Cloud seeding: “NO!”
Another Scottish referendum: “NO!”
Joanna Gray is a writer and confidence mentor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Continuing excess deaths here in the NL also. Is it just me and my selective memory or did we not hear much about excess deaths of unknown cause years back? In the summer time too…Its certainly a head-scratcher. Unless you’re Swiss Doctor who is want to lay the blame on a summer cold-type virus and the heat before any other cause.
https://nltimes.nl/2022/09/09/excess-mortality-continues-august-scientists-struggling-research-cause
“Trevor Sinclair facing calls to be sacked after controversial Queen tweet”
A hate filled tweet for sure, and he has previous as his conviction for racially abusing a police officer while being arrested for drink driving. However if he is to be sacked it should be because he doesn’t have the sort of interesting things to say about football that would keep a listeners attention.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy though. Had Matt LeTissier said “white people shouldn’t mourn the passing of Nelson Mandela” (he wouldn’t because he’s not like that, but i’m just making the point) an equally bone-headed statement, his feet would not have touched the floor on the way out.
Also note the use of the word ‘controversial’ in the headline. That suggests that it has some merit but is not well received in some parts. There is nothing controversial about it, it is grossly offensive and has no redeeming value whatsoever. As was the comment by the US Academic that was also in the news.
Free speech by private individuals is fine, but when you are a public figure it is not unreasonable for them to be held to a higher standard. Hence why I think it is a matter for their employers, but not for the police.
I wasn’t suggesting that he shouldn’t be sacked. Rather that his performance on Talk Radio is hard to square with his continued presence there. Its another ‘job for the boy’, with very little to merit it.
LeTiss demonstrates a good working knowledge of football and a reasonable perspective about the world, along with his sceptical attitude. You are right though. Sky canned him for not liking to have to wear the BLM badge on his jacket.
“British Climate Divergence: Jacob Rees-Mogg Appointed Energy Minister, as Charles is Crowned King”
There is a pragmatic necessity, that having followed the wrong energy policy for years, we don’t compound it by trying to carry on as if it hasn’t been a total disaster. It is the classic, ‘if you find your self in a hole, stop digging’.
It might be nice if they take a look at the pricing mechanisms for renewables too. Charles will just have to suck it up and let the new Prince of Wales berate us poor people for wanting to be warm in our homes, and put food on the table instead.
“Why was Kemi Badenoch overlooked for Education Secretary?”
I’m a Kemi fan, and hoped that she would get Education too. However, I can see the logic of having Kit Malthouse in there instead. He is older and more experienced, and seems the type to have a go at the blob. Kemi could be a future Prime Minister, but not if she throws herself across Education and is stymied or defeated. Trade will allow her to hone her skills and build her capital, in what is a vital role of expanding the economy. Its a positive role that will suit her positive outlook. I hope I’m right.
My worry about the Trade brief would be that it depends very much on the Government cutting EU induced red tape and regulations. Otherwise all she can really achieve is rolling over our pre-independence agreements.
Despite making noises in the direction, so-far at least deregulation has always been at the bottom of the to-do list along with all of the other manifesto promises that they have no intention of getting around to.
Accepted that priorities change, but the PM was quite forthright about bombing the EU red tape out the system. I keep hoping that she will follow through on her pledges.
I’ll be as happy as anyone if they actually do, but those are the kinds of things they talk about but for some reason never seem to actually do.
My late father used to call them ‘The Gunners’, on account of them gunner do this or gunner do that.
I’m posting this link here as a follow on to the discussion yesterday about Common Law. If enough of us follow this path, then we can & will set-up a parallel legal system which cannot be hijacked or corrupted by those who wish to control everything, as Common Law is higher than Maritime or Statute Law. BTW ever wondered why one is given citizenship? At birth we’re registered by the state as chattel, as a ship & are therefore subject to maritime law, which is set up for trade & commerce.
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/
Cash updates:
2022 coins from the Mint with Charles III on might be quite rare? By the time the Royal Mint produce them, it will be just a couple of months to 2023. They could become commemorative editions automatically – potentially worth more than their face value. Similar gamble with notes, perhaps.
I’d be surprised if they weren’t minted months ago.
Hmm. Is the Bank of England really into actuarial gambling? They would have to be pretty secret about manufacturing in advance, based on someone’s life expectancy. I suppose they might have reduced the amount printed and minted if they thought she was unlikely to survive for so many months each year. Might even be sketching some King William designs in the background!
Or they might not even bother, as it will be digital currency in the very near future?
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/985093/the-queen-set-for-a-bumper-payout-from-offshore-wind-985093.html
Nice and tidy.
It gets worse when you learn that she has been interfering with inheritance laws….
Published documents from the National Archives reveal that the Queen on occasions used the consent procedure to privately lobby the government
Evidence suggests she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public.
Documents also show that on other occasions the monarch’s advisers demanded exclusions from proposed laws relating to road safety and land policy that appeared to affect estates, and pressed for government policy on historic sites to be altered.
Some of the bills the Queen reviewed before they were passed by parliament relate to wealth or taxation.
One of the richest families in Britain, the monarch’s property investments are exempt from inheritance tax.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
This is what we are a part of!
https://twitter.com/winteroakpress/status/1568304210826989572?s=21&t=XAhgcTRzpq1UmFx8rHEK0Q
I think my wife gave me the new BJ1 variant. It sucks.
I have an antiquated Teasmade gathering dust in the attic. Don’t know why that just sprung to mind?