General Election – the final push

16 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. A comment on your excellent (as always!) piece –

    I’ve been wrestling with that concept of ‘Truth’ for some while now. As a Christian, you have it easy, in that you recognise God’s Truth.

    I don’t have the luxury of that certainty and I see he ‘pro-science’ fanatics try it on, as do the climate change fanatics.

    As I’ve written in my forthcoming (subject to agents/publishers liking it!) book, ‘Food Uncovered’:

    “An extremely balanced and well-argued 2017 paper , published in the journal ‘Vaccine’, by Dr Nicola Bragazzi and colleagues, makes very well-founded comments about the true, questioning nature of science and about the value of open debate. They make a profound statement about the nature of science, which all ‘pro-science’ enthusiasts would do well to print out, frame and hang on their walls:
    ‘… science is not divinities: it is not the Truth, it is, instead, a long, winding road, characterized also by errors. It is not a linear path, but, rather, a method, an exercise that needs to be practiced daily, to be repeated, independently replicated and confirmed.’

    “Hugo Rifkind, in an article in ‘The Times’ (referring to an argument about an October 2019 comment made by a presenter about racism), wrote that the BBC was trying too hard to provide balance by presenting the other side of the argument “even when there isn’t one”.

    “But, whenever we say that there is only one side to an argument, we are saying precisely what Dr Bragazzi and his colleagues warned against: we are saying that there is one Truth; we are saying that our bien pensant view is the only view; we are, to put it bluntly, on the road to fascism.

    “So whatever side we are on in this ‘debate’ about the safety of agrochemicals and the benefits of organic food (or about the safety and efficacy of vaccines or homeopathy, come to that), we must always keep in mind that we are not – any of us – the keepers of a ‘Truth’.”

    And …

    “At present, by far the worst purveyors of what I shall call ‘truth-washing’ are the climate change activist organisation ‘Extinction Rebellion’, exemplified by the page on their website entitled ‘The Truth’.

    “The ‘Emergency’ section on that page contains what I presume are intended to be the clinching arguments for their thesis that ‘We are facing an unprecedented global emergency’, but the content there seems to my critical eye to be a rather cack-handed attempt to persuade people of their point of view, simply by calling it ‘The Truth’ and shouting a lot about how terrible anyone is who doesn’t agree with them. However, a collection of graphs and tables, some scientific facts and figures, but also a large number of projections, possibilities, opinions and – to be frank – half-truths doesn’t become ‘Truth’ just because you choose to call it that!”

    Oh dear, sorry that was a bit long!!

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 11 December 2019 at 21:11
        Author

      But nicely argued!

    1. One must learn more about science to see what is what. Let me give you a good example of science. The Higgs boson was recently discovered, but it was theoretically predicted way back, I think around the 50s time. There were two equations Peter Higgs worked with, both of which were pretty solid and tested, and by combining the two, it said in the calculations that the particle must exist. It’s a big word must, but this was like saying 2 + 2 must equal four in a far more complicated manner. We have seen this many times, where a mathematical equation says it must be true and sure enough it turned out to be true. The positron is another example if you wish to study this. The equation allowed for a solution with negative energy, and indeed that’s what we got.

      When they ran the experiment at the LHC they did what they always do in these cases. They run the experiment enough times to get a result to 5 sigma accuracy, as that is the standard we have. That gives it a one in 3.5 million chance of being wrong, and scientists can tolerate egg on their face one in 3.5 million times. I also think it is pretty safe. You can dumb this argument down to say they will never be certain, but your error will diminish to a chance so small it would never be known to be wrong This is the nature of probability. Enough checks and we can nail it down to as certain as you can be without being perfect. It’s like saying if you wanted to move one meter, and you moved half this amount and then half of that again repeated to infinity, you will never move a meter, but you will get so close you will not notice the difference.

      Lets be pragmatic though, and lets not deceive people into gleaming from the mention of uncertainty that it means it is unreliable, since in many cases the uncertainty so small as to be insignificant. There is a chance that all the air molecules in the sky could hit you at the same time, but we never worry about that, do we? People think in binary, true or false. What we must do if we want to be scientific is to quote the result and the error bounds. If Greens make a prediction that life will be extinct in x number of years time if we don’t “do something” about “the problem”, then they need to include the level of certainty they computed with the prediction. They also need to show their workings. If they do then they can start to tell us that they work scientifically. I would hate them to give science a bad name, and that is what it is as risk of doing. In short – quote error bounds or don’t bother telling us.

  2. … also, the concept of the pro-EU Marxist (yes, Mr McDonnell, this means you) is particularly bizarre.
    They seem to have convinced themselves that, when Karl Marx and Frederich Engels wrote, in the Communist Manifesto: “Proletarians of all countries, Unite!”, that aim could best be achieved by the EU (?!?)

    And where, one might wonder, is the “collective bargaining at European level” which Jacques Delors promised over 30 years ago?

    They appear not to have realised that there is absolutely no way that the EU would allow a Europe-wide workers’ movement, which would threaten Free Movement of capital and labour. Their much-vaunted workers’ protection is a cynical sop to the left, who have swallowed that rubbish, hook, line and sinker!

    Sigh ….

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 11 December 2019 at 21:17
        Author

      The sadness is Jeremy Corbyn has completely failed to use his esteemed position to argue the socialist case against the EU and persuade all those Momentum types that it is big capital, protectionism, jobs for the elite and grinding the faces of the poor (as the prophet Isaiah puts it – at Isa 3:15) first, second and last. A gross dereliction of duty IMHO.

      1. Indeed so – I completely agree.

    • Bark
    • Jason B on 11 December 2019 at 16:30

    UKIP. but not mentioned, has better policies out of the non-christian parties. It comes the nearest to advicating ‘Liberty of Conscience’.

    Education and Training
    ………. It is a matter of great concern that schools are turning out a large number of children who do not have the skills and confidence they need to survive in the adult world, but are nevertheless politically indoctrinated by ‘teacher activists’ who promote gender confusion, climate alarmism and a hatred of our own culture and heritage.

    Teacher training courses should be given a radical overhaul and re-focussed on training educators to use successful traditional teaching methods that focus on facts and excellence rather than post-modern, deconstructive and relativistic methods.

    Teachers must be able to concentrate on what is important by cutting down on bureaucratic assessments and appraisals. Education needs to re-focus on teaching children the basics.

    UKIP supports the rights of parents who wish to home educate their children.

    UKIP would end political correctness in schools and introduce a specific Act to prevent damaging political propaganda being passed off as fact. Indoctrination of young minds is wrong. What we must give them is the desire and capacity to think freely for themselves.

    UKIP will remove subjects from the statutory National Curriculum which seek to indoctrinate children with politically correct ideologies, specifically Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Citizenship. We will maintain parents’ right to remove their children from these lessons.

    UKIP supports faith schools, 97% of which are Christian schools. We will scrap the cap on faith-based selection in faith schools.

    UKIP will repeal laws infringing the family unit’s fundamental right to be primarily responsible for its children. We oppose the disempowerment of parents by the state, whereby its institutions are increasingly dictating the norms and values children learn and supplanting the role of the parents and their right to pass on their own values and beliefs to their children.

    UKIP will remove subjects from the statutory National Curriculum which seek to indoctrinate children with politically correct ideologies, specifically Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Citizenship. We will maintain parents’ right to remove their children from these lessons.

    UKIP opposes the confusing and non-scientific gender ideology currently being introduced into schools and will repeal the law responsible for the implementation of ‘LGBT-inclusive’ Relationships Education in primary schools and RSE, due to be made compulsory from September 2020.

    • Moira
    • Moira W on 11 December 2019 at 18:11

    Hi Stephen, your readers should know that although Corbyn says the security of Britain is his priority, his hatred of Israel will make us vulnerable to more terrorist attacks.
    At present, Israeli intelligence uncovers and prevents multiple acts of terrorism in the UK. If Corbyn wins the election, he will first of all unilaterally recognise a Palestinian State, a thing which has never previously existed, thereby giving legitimacy and encouragement to the terrorist organisations which seek to replace Israel with yet another oppressive Muslim terrorist State. He will also break off relations and security cooperation with the State of Israel, which will result in the successful implementation of multiple acts of carnage, that would otherwise have been intercepted and prevented.
    God says that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.
    Together with his no limit abortion pledge, this evil man will lead our once great country further into a time of great judgement.

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 11 December 2019 at 21:18
        Author

      Good points, well made.

    • V37
    • Steve H on 12 December 2019 at 09:55

    “Every party (except the Brexit Party) would continue to institutionalise the barefaced falsehood of transgenderism.” Please check out the Christian Peoples Alliance.

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 12 December 2019 at 10:09
        Author

      I am confident the CPA will not be promoting that falsehood! May God bless them.

    • Boffey
    • Boffey on 12 December 2019 at 11:21

    Steve H., UKIP, and presumably, the Christian Party, are against the transgender ideology.

  3. Moira W,
    My father was a collector of coins and left the collection to me. It includes 2 coins from ‘Palestine’ dated 1931 & 1941. If there has never been a Palestinian state who minted these coins?
    How did a fertile land with a sea border become an empty wasteland in 1948 when Israel was born? It would have been prime estate.
    There must have been enough ‘Palestinian’ citizens to justify minting their own coinage and enough infrastructure to produce and distribute the coins.
    Hardly an empty wasteland.
    Of course it was the Muslims who displaced the Jews (and Christians) but it happened in the 8th century.

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 16 December 2019 at 14:52
        Author

      I wonder if those coins are from the British Mandate?

    • Bark
    • Jason B on 13 December 2019 at 18:16

    We may quite rightly be very thankful for the election results especially in view of the standing and leanings of the other main parties on Education. Is there anything one can suggest being done by this tory government in granting ‘liberty of conscience’ to all and proper consultation to parents over LGBT education.

    It was Simon Heffer, the well known Eurosceptic journalist, who said in April 2017, “there is much more to governing the UK than leaving the EU, important though that be”.

    Looking almost in vain to where the new represented political parties now stand on Education, where would we find a gravitas approach to advocate a reverse and reform? The Conservatives have sadly remained mute to those seeking a right of withdrawal and now we need to persuade them better.

    The Green Party openly mention they would “end the opt-out of LGBTIQA+ inclusive” lessons and fund lessons covering “all aspects of sex and relationships”, the Labour promises “mandatory LGBT+ inclusive lessons strangely under their ‘Woman and Equalities’ section, and the Lib Dem brazenly state, teaching on LGBT+ relationships, sexual consent and “issues surrounding explicit images and content” will all be included.

    How our future education will be governed for our off-spring has to be a top priority. Can we do something?

      • Stephen
      • Stephen on 16 December 2019 at 14:51
        Author

      We need to, as the Tories are, or were when Parliament broke up, sold out to the LGBT agenda and forcing it on primary school children. I’ll travel to inform parents of this. Just invite me, you churches!

Comments have been disabled.