He may even have the ideological flexibility needed to put substance on
Posted in General on 27. Aug, 2010
He may even have the ideological flexibility needed to put substance on a programme which combines the theme of the small state with that of high-quality, decentralised public services. Unlike William Hague, he also has a degree of personal charisma, and shows the occasional kingfisher-flash of danger and ruthlessness.On the other hand, there are many reasons for doubting Mr Portillo’s credentials as an alternative prime minister his erratic judgement, the shallowness of his past rhetoric about making Britain an “ultra low tax economy” and the sheer flip-floppery of his approach to policy. For people of all political persuasions who share this newspaper’s belief in the importance of Britain’s place in Europe, meanwhile, his categorical opposition to adopting the euro is just as irresponsible as Mr Hague’s.One reason which is completely irrelevant, however, is Mr Portillo’s sexuality. He has been congratulated on his openness about his past homosexuality, and rightly so, but only on the assumption that it might help lead to a situation in which such information was a matter of indifference.It is nonsensical to declare, as some commentators have, that any politician with serious aspirations to high office must not simply be married but must have children. That is as offensive to the childless as it is demeaning to the wider electorate. It is a gross intrusion into the private lives of public representatives with no basis in fact.
No one suggests Sir Edward Heath was a lesser prime minister than any other for that reason.If the Conservative Party really is to reach out to a new bloc of voters, it must put prejudice and homophobic innuendo behind it. As the once-influential Bow Group says today, it must tone down its support for that symbol of discrimination, Section 28, which pointlessly prohibits the “promotion” of homosexuality. And no more should be heard from within the party’s ranks about Mr Portillo’s private life. Let the candidates for the Tory leadership be judged on their merits, and on their merits alone.. With the optimism of its youth, The Independent prefers to hope where others despair.
The crisis of the Kyoto agreement on measures to deal with global warming, however, cannot but prompt gloom about the future. There are several potential reasons for looking on the bright side of life which, upon examination, turn to dust. With the optimism of its youth, The Independent prefers to hope where others despair. The crisis of the Kyoto agreement on measures to deal with global warming, however, cannot but prompt gloom about the future.
There are several potential reasons for looking on the bright side of life which, upon examination, turn to dust.
It could be argued, for instance, that the Kyoto Protocol was so inadequate in relation to the scale of the threat posed by human-made climate change, that it makes no real difference whether or not it is ratified Not so. The targets agreed at Kyoto in 1997 would have, it is true, only a limited effect in restraining the growth of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions requiring rich nations to cut emissions back to below 1990 levels, while giving poorer countries scope to burn more fossil fuels.The signing of the protocol was, however, a hugely significant event, in that it secured the assent of all the nations of the world to the principle of legally-binding limits on emissions having accepted at the Rio conference five years earlier that global warming was happening and that steps ought to be taken to mitigate it.What is more, the basic structure of the Kyoto deal was right, which was that the rich, energy-hungry countries should lead the way by cutting their emissions, before demanding that developing nations make a similar sacrifice. All that has now been rejected by the one nation whose participation is most essential, the United States.The other reason for thinking that there might be a silver lining to the pall hanging over the world’s greatest polluter, is that President Bush’s rejection of Kyoto simply makes explicit the fact that the US was never going to ratify the treaty in any case. There is some truth to that: the US Senate, which has the power to ratify treaties, is deeply sceptical about the science of global warming and is overwhelmingly opposed to the protocol.There is some benefit in President Bush’s directness, therefore, in highlighting the difficulty of persuading the American people of the need to use less energy. Simply demonising George Bush as an individual misguided though he is serves little purpose. Those who want to see the governments of the world move towards sustainable economics, must sell their case to peoples all over the world who enjoy or want to enjoy the American way of life.There is no doubt, however, that the chances of persuading either the Senate or the wider American public of the need for change are much lower under George Bush than they would have been under Al Gore paradoxically denied the Presidency by the self-defeating “green” candidacy of Ralph Nader.The realistic optimist, therefore, accepts that a major battle in the war against global warming has been lost, and prepares for the next push. International agreements are often messy and imperfect, processes rather than events.