In August, across on his thread ‘The Case Against Net Zero – a Fourth Update’, Robin Guenier made the very strong case that the UK’s Net Zero policy is unachievable, disastrous and pointless. The subsequent discussion noted that currently the UK contributes only about 1% of humanity’s CO2 emissions. The question then arose as to why the UK is making such a huge effort to reach Net Zero when most of the rest of the world is evidently little interested in that policy objective. In short, the UK’s approach seems most irrational.
This led to a discussion of UK politics and its apparent drift away from effective representative democracy. Specifically, in trying to understand the UK’s energy/climate irrationality I quoted (see below) from page 17 of Phillip W. Gray’s book on totalitarianism which is a political ideology that, Gray claims, will often adopt policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside. This subsequently led me to write a longer commentary on totalitarianism based upon my reading of, primarily, Gray’s book. The text of that intervention is as follows.
————-
On 9th August I quoted from Gray’s book on totalitarianism and, on 13th August, Richard suggested more should be said. I have therefore reviewed Gray’s short book (177 pages) and listed a few quotations (see Addendum below) that, for me, illustrate the way we in the West are already heading – even if we have not yet reached the possible final destination of technological totalitarianism sketched by Gray.
One of the key insights for me is Gray’s distinction (already observed by others, even politicians e.g. Michael Gove) between, on the one hand, “experts” in the traditional sense of having deep and extensive understanding of a body of knowledge related to the real world, and on the other hand, the newer sense of “experts” as simply credentialed for having the correct, consensus-consistent opinions, typically on current topics related to public policy.
This distinction between ‘knowledge experts’ and ‘credentialed experts’ is one that another well respected commentator on post-democratic politics seems to have signally failed to grasp. Colin Crouch [Ref. 1] writes, “Rejection of scientific knowledge reverberates across the US political right, from religious creationists, to climate change deniers, to the anti-vaccination movement, and forms part of the demagogic rhetoric of many kinds of populists reassuring people that important decisions do not require any knowledge, because experts are sometimes wrong.” No! While it is agreed that experts can sometimes be wrong (especially in complex matters), the rejection described above is not of unalloyed science but of motivated “trust-the-science” reasoning masquerading as traditional science.
To be fair to Crouch, he is not alone. Many in or close to academia seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between two classes of academic work, namely between (i) truly independent non-partisan scholarship and (ii) scholarship directed in support of a particular argument (such as a barrister makes in court in favour of defence or prosecution) which is sometimes called motivated reasoning.
Early in his book (page 12) Gray indicates that, for its supporters, totalitarianism acts as a ‘master key’ to understanding society. This theme is taken up by Professor Mike Hulme [Ref. 2], “Master-narratives offer comprehensive explanations of historical experience and/or knowledge about the future. To quote two leading academics who study them, a master-narrative ‘is a global or totalizing cultural schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience’.”
Hulme also tells us [Ref. 2] that, “The purpose of this book is to warn against the allure of blaming everything on climate … Climate reductionism has turned into a fully fledged ideology, an ideology that I call ‘climatism’ …Climatism is the settled belief that the dominant explanation of social, economic and ecological phenomena is a ‘human-caused change in the climate’ … Yet climatism is a pattern of thought which carries significant dangers for social justice, political freedom and future prosperity.” Hulme further warns us, “But climatism has also crept into a more extensive range of businesses, charities, professions and public institutions, such as Amazon, Oxfam, the BBC and the World Bank.”
I have quoted Hulme, not simply because he (now) sees the totalitarian dangers of climatism, but because some 15 years ago, while Professor of Climate Change at UEA, he seemed to be encouraging climate politicization, “By approaching climate change as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of tasks, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” [Ref. 3].
With this very brief overview of a possible technocratic totalitarian future as my background, you will, I hope, understand why I am currently trying to establish the similarities (and marked differences) of the West’s current situation in terms of traditional fascist doctrine.
References
- Colin Crouch, “Post-democracy after the crises”, polity, 2020, especially page 145.
- Mike Hulme, “Climate Change isn’t Everything – liberating climate politics from alarmism”, polity, 2023, especially pages 7, 8, 20, 32 and 90.
- Mike Hulme, “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”, Cambridge, 2009, page 340.
ADDENDUM: Quotes from Phillip W. Gray, “Totalitarianism: the basics”, Routledge, 2023
(with a couple of my own comments added in italics)
[page 12] “… totalitarian ideology act as a “master key” to understand society and history.”
[page 14] “… totalitarian ideology requires the politicization of every aspect of human existence.” This is echoed [page 90, section title] with the quote from Mussolini, “Everything in the State, Nothing Outside the State, Nothing Against the State”.
[page 17] “Finally, for most totalitarian governments, there will be an inclination to expansion … and, finally, this expansion might be fundamentally global in nature, with the final aim of transforming the entire world.” Is this the so-called Great Reset in action?
[page 17] “Totalitarian governments will often engage in, and maintain, policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside … Indeed, it is rare to find a totalitarian government that does not engage in at least some activities that seem irrational.”
[page 41] “The linking element between the disparate forms of eco-totalitarianism is the central focus on the “planet,” “nature,” or some similar ecologically focused notion.”
[page 71] “Each factor – loss of fundamental legitimacy or a major issue in a narrow timeframe – will bring problems, but it generally needs to be both together to create a crisis by which totalitarian movements can gain victory.” The ever-repeated invocation of the Climate Emergency is, I suppose, designed to create for us the necessary air of permanent crisis.
[page 94] “No association is too small, no person too socially insignificant that they can be spared the obligation to hold the “correct” views and exhibit proper “enthusiasm” for the regime and its goals.”
[page 99] “Most totalitarian regimes, if they are able, will engage in many large-scale industrial and infrastructure projects upon taking power … While infrastructure improvements would be appealing after years of crisis and instability, these changes are built on the backs of the population through rationing and severe regimentation.”
[page 101] “While the amount of terror varies between totalitarian states, a system of this type simply cannot exist for any real length of time without it.” What forms will terror take if this style of political ideology strengthens its grip on the West?
[page 108] “And yet, with a few notable exceptions, most totalitarian regimes that have existed, exist no more.”
[page 126] Section title, ‘The “Golden Age” of Totalitarianism’, defined at line 2 as starting from about 1917 and running to 1953.
[pages 144 – 162] Chapter 6 ‘The Future of Totalitarianism’
[page 146] “… a notable amount of people do look to the PRC’s system as something worth emulating … One needs to only look at some of the various writings by Westerners on China’s “success” in handling the COVID-19 pandemic … one of the more consistent mistakes from various “experts” and others was the belief that one could have the benefits of totalitarianism … without the negatives … ”
[page 155] “Forced unification can exacerbate underlying tensions … “we all just need to get beyond our differences, come together, and do everything I want.” A potentially emergent form of totalitarianism does seem to use this type of passive-aggressive, “nudging” form of coercion, so, let’s spend a little time talking about it.
Technocratic Totalitarianism on the Rise?
Totalitarianism historically develops from parties and movements that seek to destroy what exists and replace it with something new.” Such as replacing a highly reliable electricity grid with an unreliable and highly expensive one?
[page 155] “But in recent years … something new may be arising: a type of “technocratic totalitarianism,” a “rule by experts” with traits of totalitarian rule.”
[page 156] “The following … is quite speculative … We could define “technocratic totalitarianism” as a totalitarian ideology …that bases its legitimacy upon the knowledge/training of an “expert” class … that … emphasizes bureaucratic, regulatory, and other less-accountable parts of government … The unifying element is expertise, but “credentials” is perhaps a more accurate term … “expertise” arises from the consensus among other experts (rather than from an external truth or reality).”
[page 157] “The fixation of the credentialed “expert” class has, at various points, emphasized globalization as an economic/cultural foundation of a new order, a new ecological order … shifting away from fossil fuels … or now on “net zero emission” … Perhaps an example would be useful. Consider the events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic …many nations imposed substantial limitations on their populations … with many corporate entities aiding in these endeavours, be it in blocking “misinformation” (even if such information turned out to be correct, or at least arguably so). In most cases, the populations of these democracies had no vote on these restrictions … political leaders often shifted responsibility to government entities … which appeared as “black boxes” of unaccountability. One was to “Trust the Science,” even if the restrictions seemed questionable through scientific analysis.”
[page 158] “Certainly, there have been plenty of authors arguing that many Western societies are becoming (or already are) totalitarian in nature …”
[page 159] section ‘Summing Up’, bullet point 4, “The mixture of technological advancements with an increased focus on credentialed “expertise” could be developing toward a rather different form of totalitarianism based on more technocratic foundations.”
Regards, John C.
Climate Scepticism 
Thank you John for allowing me to elevate this excellent and thought-provoking comment to a more prominent position!
To commenters: as John C is a guest here, please disagree politely, if you have to disagree.
LikeLike
The quotes from Gray’s book are uncannily apt.
LikeLike
Looking through the long list of comments following John C’s comment (here now reproduced as a post) it is obvious that there are many complex considerations and a whole host of differing views regarding Net Zero and its imposition.
It seems to me that comments on this thread should appropriately (and politely, always politely of course!) address the following question:
Is the uncanny resemblance of Net Zero to Gray’s description of Totalitarianism merely coincidence or does it hint at the real underlying motivation behind the implementation of net Zero?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have seen sceptics badged as “not climate scientists” as if in some way that diminishes their opinions. But at least some sceptics are able to argue at the level of a “credentialled” climate scientist, and at times (e.g. Steve McIntyre) beyond them. It is valid to wave a credential when it demonstrates your competence at a certain task (airline pilot) but not when the matter is an abstruse one where even the “credentialled” are unable to compass the whole.
There are occasions when climate debates can be resolved by pure logic. Take the David Turver piece linked to by Mark on the Net Zero thread (similar comments have been made recently by Paul Homewood). Here, the credentialled are stating that renewables are the cheapest form of electricity, when the numbers demonstrate the opposite.
Then we have the absurd demands for “Citizens’ Assemblies” with their pre-programmed conclusions, and statistics showing that the younger generation have no great attachment to democracy.
The lack of uproar re: the outdoor smoking ban was quite shocking for me. Polls showing a majority in favour of it? It seems we value personal freedom less and less. But the arguments for it are quite specious (I speak as an asthmatic non-smoker!)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Once again someone comes out swinging against academics (with an offside that there are exceptions). Well my experience and view is very different. I might have been able to understand this difference if my experience were confined to interactions with geologists, but most of it was in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA. There there were all kinds of folks, including Mike Hulme, whom John you seem to admire and who was one of the School’s stars but who hid his light.
I don’t believe there was an “academic” (in your sense) in ENV when I was there. If you wanted to know anything relevant to environmental science in its widest sense (including politics and economics), there would be an expert (often a textbook writer) on the staff. Commonly we might have to cover someone’s teaching responsibilities as they gave their expertise to National or Regional governments. Several of us would increase our learning by taking classes given by other class members. The head of School was one of two geophysicists who interpreted marine magnetic patterns as evidence for sea-floor spreading and revolutionised our understanding of the Earth. Such megastars (as far from an “academic” as you can get) were many. I felt (and still feel) absolutely privileged to have been part of ENV. I cringe every time attacks on academics are made for I was privileged to be counted as one.
LikeLike
Thank you John C for a thought-provoking read.
It obviously provokes different thoughts in different people, for I do not see the attack on academics that Alan has discerned.
I agree that an insistence on listening and deferring to “experts” has been, and continues to be, used to clamp down on dissent. We can all learn from the accumulated knowledge of experts, but it’s essential to be alert to experts pushing an agenda. We are all human – even experts – and to err is human. We should listen to what experts have to say, and should then be free to disagree, and should not be pilloried and/or ridiculed for doing so.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My apologies. As Mark writes you were not discussing academics but varieties of Expert. This followed on from discussions of academics by others, many of whom were being classed as false experts having opinions but no real expertise. This closely resembled your own separation of different types of expert. But you did not identify any as academics. Sorry for going off half cocked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C,
If you haven’t already done so, I highly recommend that you read Rupert Darwall’s ‘Green Tyranny: Exposing the totalitarian roots of the climate industrial complex’.
LikeLike
Thank you everybody for your comments. I shall marshal my thoughts and reply where I think I may have something to offer.
To start with John R’s comment. While I am familiar with some of the work of Rupert Darwall (e.g. https://assets.realclear.com/files/2023/12/2320_realclear-report-rupertfarwall-v7.pdf) I have yet to read his “Green Tyranny”; it has just jumped right up my reading list. Thank you for the reminder.
Alan and Mark, thank you for clarifying your understanding regarding my comments on academics. I had not meant to criticise them as a group, but I did want to draw attention in particular to Professor Mike Hulme who, judging by his writings, has changed his views considerably over the last 15 years. In his recent book “Climate Change Isn’t Everything” he warns us against the admixture of alarmism and authoritarianism.
However, I do have an important criticism concerning academia as a whole, but I will make that argument in a separate posting.
Finally (for now!) I think Jaime’s question, “Is the uncanny resemblance of Net Zero to Gray’s description of Totalitarianism merely coincidence or does it hint at the real underlying motivation behind the implementation of net Zero?” will be central to the discussion.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C,
Happy reading. Regarding Jaime’s question, I think Darwall’s book is all about answering that question. Suffice to say, there is no coincidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, regarding Darwall’s book, its second chapter, titled “The great transformation”, starts with a brilliant quote:
LikeLike
So, are we progressing rapidly towards a form of ‘technocratic totalitarianism’, i.e. proxy rule by credentialed ‘experts’, whose credentials (or even assumed credentials – it seems that anyone can become an ‘expert’ these days, given the right connections) bestow upon them the right to ‘follow the science’, endorse the science, and crucially, compel non experts to follow the science? This will only work if the aura of the expertise of the credentialed class is strong and the ignorance of the public re. ‘the science’ is all-pervasive. Which is where the world wide web comes in, the information superhighway – or the Misinformation Superhighway according to those who support the One Narrative, the consensus narrative, the one source of truth, the Settled Science of the credentialed class. The internet is an existential threat to the credentialed class, which is why of course they are going to exceptional lengths now to try to shut it down, or at least compel the information agents to dispense only authorised information and severely curtail non authorised information, i.e. misinformation and disinformation. Because such ‘misinformation’ can expose the ‘experts’ very quickly as ignoramuses, fools and charlatans and then our technocracy or ‘rule by experts’ quickly becomes exposed as an Idiocracy, or rule by idiots – and David Turver’s Stark Sends Out SOS illustrates this perfectly. David says:
Which would be highly amusing if it were not so serious: basically, Mr Milibean and Stark Raving Bonkers are appealing to the ‘experts’ at NG ESO (the management of which consists increasingly of personnel picked not for their knowledge or experience but for their ‘diversity’ and their compliance with and enthusiastic endorsement of the authorised narrative) for advice on how to reach Net Zero Grid 2030. The managers will probably cook up some sort of stronger version of their already existing ‘credible Net Zero pathways’ in response, which won’t be (can’t be) fully costed and demonstrably achievable because the mission is impossible. In that respect, if the advice of actual experts at NG ESO was sought, i.e. the accumulated wisdom and expert opinions of the engineers and scientists working on the ground and not pen-pushing at NG ESO, the conclusion would be that a zero carbon grid by 2030 is technically non-feasible at best, definitely impossible at worst.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I confess that when I see the likes of Deben and Stark described in the media as experts whose views must be listened to with great reverence because of the authority conferred on them by their expertise, I do a double-take.
LikeLike
We may be getting a little off topic – if so, I apologise. Curious that “experts” I just derided agree with me here. I still question their expertise, but it’s curious why their opinions were given great weight by the likes of the Guardian and the BBC when they were “on-message” but when they raise doubts we learn nothing of that from the BBC and the Guardian. You have to go to Politico for that:
“Keir Starmer channels JFK for his climate ‘moonshot’
Are Labour’s ambitions for delivering clean energy an inspired example of ‘mission thinking’ — or one more doomed big idea?”
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-keir-starmer-labour-clean-energy-fossil-fuels-ed-miliband-energy-supply-jfk-space-mission/
...Starmer and his Energy Secretary Ed Miliband are promising to transform the energy supply so that people flicking switches in their homes will know their electricity likely comes from a clean power source such as wind or solar.
But to do that, the new government will need to bulk up the U.K.’s creaking grid, overhaul the planning system to get infrastructure up and running, and reduce emissions from the squadron of gas plants using carbon capture, a technology largely unproven in the U.K.
It will be “very difficult,” said John Gummer, former chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the watchdog tasked with scrutinizing the government’s progress. “I personally don’t think it is achievable,” Chris Skidmore, a Conservative former energy minister, said last year.
Neil Golding, head of market intelligence at trade body the Energy Industries Council, expects Labour to miss its goal. Greater ambitions from the party are welcome but “the same issues remain in terms of hitting the targets,” he said. Gary Smith, head of the GMB labor union, one of Labour’s largest donors, has called it “impossible.”
Starmer and Miliband disagree. And that’s where “mission control” comes in. It’s a new delivery unit sitting inside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), focused squarely on the 2030 goal and headed up by Chris Stark, former CCC boss and a highly respected figure in energy circles. “If it can be done, Chris Stark is the one to do it,” Gummer said.…
….A DESNZ spokesperson said: “Creating a laser-focused mission control will turbocharge the government’s mission to provide Britain with clean power by 2030. Mission control will draw from a range of skills from inside and outside government to support its work.”…
That’s OK, then. It’s bound to happen and to be a great success.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The way the words “clean power” have penetrated discussion on this topic has something of an Orwellian whiff. Carbon dioxide is dirty? The renewables were clean when they constituents were being scraped together from open cast mining and toxic refining practices?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Labour are in power and are stuffing the civil service with their own handpicked cronies. That power is about as ‘clean’ as the ‘clean power’ due to come down the line of newly built hundreds of miles of monstrous pylons connected to monstrous turbines littering the Scottish highland and islands.
LikeLike
Anyway, is Net Zero totalitarian or titalitarian? Thoughts?
LikeLike
Mark,
‘laser-focused’ eh? What, like Stalin was laser-focused?
LikeLike
John R, thank you for the excellent quote from Longfellow. My old Oxford Dictionary of Quotations attributes a variant to James Duport (1606 – 1679), “Whom God would destroy He first sends mad.”
However, rummaging around in AZ Quotes I came across this which is perhaps most apt in our rent-seeking, climate apocalyptic days, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first subsidize” by George Roche III (1935 – 2006) https://www.azquotes.com/quote/544728
I hope that Roche is correct in this.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I want to say a little more about Professor Mike Hulme’s 2023 book “Climate Change isn’t Everything” because he has been at the centre of climate debate for many years and seems, judging from this book, to have now a very different perspective from some 15 years ago. As noted in the head post, Hulme has moved from encouraging climate politicization to now warning of the dangers of blaming all our ills on climate change, an ideology that Hulme calls climatism.
First, however, it is germane to refer back to Benito Mussolini’s dictum, “For the Fascist, everything is the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian.”
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1433763
Has Hulme deliberately used the word “Everything” in the title of his book as a flag to warn us of the dangers of climatism? He does not say, although we should note that the subtitle of the book is, “Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism”. However, we should further note that Hulme does use the words ‘totalitarian’ and ‘totalizing’ on, by my count, nine different pages in a book of just 200 pages. Indeed, for me, the whole tenor of the book is a signal warning (from a central player in the climate debate) against the slide, via climatism, into authoritarianism. This can be perceived from the titles of the book’s chapters and (in italics) their subtitles:-
Introduction. Civil War, Racist Tweets and Flood Devastation.
1. From Climate to Climatism. How an Ideology is Made.
2. How Did Climatism Arise? Fetishizing Global Temperature.
3. Are the Sciences Climatist? The Noble Lie and Other Misdemeanours.
4. Why is Climatism So Alluring? Master-narratives and Polarizing Moralism.
5. Why is Climatism Dangerous? The Narrowing of Political Vision.
6. If Not Climatism, Then What? Wicked Problems Need Clumsy.
7. Some Objections. ‘You Sound Just Like …’
In these last two chapters it is good to see Hulme proposing alternative viewpoints and fighting back against entrenched alarmism.
I will not here quote as extensively as I did from Gray. However, some quotations from Hulme are in order as they help to illuminate the West’s current situation:-
[page 8] “Whereas ten years ago I was concerned about how climate reductionist thinking was limiting our imagination of the future, I am now concerned about how it is constraining the politics of the present.”
[page 116] “Climatism is totalizing not just in the sense of seeking to envelop all matters of public concern within a single master-narrative … Climatism also, at its most extreme, seeks to police the boundaries of what can and cannot be said about climate change, and by whom.”
[page 117] “… climatism is in danger of feeding illiberal and anti-democratic impulses, of censoring critical but legitimate and minority voices in a polity.”
Thus Hulme’s book, I believe, represents an important bridge between the earlier period of the promotion of climate politicization and the current period of (his) realisation that the politicization has so often been malign through its reductionist, anti-democratic stance. According to the book’s Acknowledgements that realisation began to form in 2018 and crystalised in 2021. What astonishes me is that it took Hulme so long to arrive at this view. Was not the writing on the wall years ago? Indeed, were not the germs of that politicization evident from his own writing, the book “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”, published about 15 years ago?
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Going back to my comment https://cliscep.com/2024/09/01/on-totalitarianism/#comment-154632:
David McGrogan doesn’t mention totalitarian, but he does identify the Starmer Labour government as “bossy” (aka authoritarian) in a school headmaster sort of way:
Banging ‘racist, far right’ people up for two or three years in prisons dominated by Muslim gangs for saying not nice things on Facebook is a little more serious than detention though. But McGrogan correctly characterises the gormless ‘expert’ class who now seek to tell us what is good for us and what isn’t good for the planet or for harmonious society:
When people don’t get with Net Zero and when the Net Zero machine starts to go wrong, as it surely must, Starmer is going to get mad and he won’t blame poor design, he will blame us, the moving parts, for throwing a spanner in the works of the perfect utopian plan to order society and industry so that it is 100% sustainable and climate friendly. Things will get ugly, as McGrogan rightly points out:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/04/things-are-going-to-get-ugly/
Well worth reading in full. It looks like we sceptics and Net Zero rebels might soon be in danger of being shipped off to the work camps.
LikeLike
I wonder just how deep the ideological commitment to Net Zero is. Will it evaporate like the dew of the morning as soon as opposition grows into a powerful force? For there has been no significant opposition to test that theory. A politician’s first instinct may be to protect his skin, and that can come either by squashing dissent, or giving way before it.
Instinct tells me that they will initially give way in a form that involves only trivial concessions (like Mr. Sunak), in the hope of temporarily mollifying the baying crowd and that its second wind will be nothing like their first.
We are seeing unpopular things announced at pace. The closer we get to 2029, the more conciliatory the approach may be.
The large asterisk floating over all this is that (as seen earlier this week) we have an opposition that has not yet seen the opportunity that pushing back against Net Zero holds politically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s something strange about all of this.
Ideologies usually gain hegemony through the auspices of a political group that muscles out the opposition. However, that is not what we are seeing here. The totalitarianism seems to be of a new and profound order in which the relevant ideology (eco-extremism) appears to have gained traction within all of the main political groups. Consequently, there has been no need for one group or the other to attain dominance for the idea to triumph.
I think this reflects the origins of this particular ideology. It exploits primal belief systems and has therefore wormed its way into the framework within which the debates are to be had. It has become the metalogic by which logical arguments are to be made. To make any ground, it isn’t sufficient to defeat the logical arguments proffered, for what they are worth. You have to defeat the metalogic that has everyone in its thrall. You have to successfully challenge the suppositions regarding what constitutes a logical argument, because that’s where the problem lies.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John, yup, you said it . . . . because the ideological commitment is not so much to Net Zero, which is merely a (very) grand delusional illogical argument, the ideological commitment is to what underpins the attachment to the illogical argument, which is man-made climate catastrophism. I have no idea how we can even begin to deconstruct that ideological edifice . . . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
I have my suspicions that the commitment may run even deeper than that. It may not be a commitment to the catastrophism but instead a desire for a world order change, for which the stated desire to avoid catastrophe is just a pretext. The fundamental sentiment is anti-capitalism and someone’s conception of what constitutes social justice at a global level. I think that is what is framing the debate and allowing stupid and impractible proposals to proceed unchecked. They are deemed valid as long as they are consistent with an over-arching progressive logic. The weird thing is that the desire to be seen as progressive justice warriors is causing a lot of capitalists to endorse seriously anti-capitalist proposals.
Put bluntly, I think the arguments regarding the futility of UK’s net zero efforts do not work because this never has been about the climate. It’s about achieving a form of moral salvation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John: I know several people who have no doubt that Net Zero is about the climate and are not in any sense seeking moral salvation or world order change. And I’m sure there are many more such people. And, as more disagreeable consequences become apparent, they’ll be increasingly likely to begin to lose their commitment and therefore become prime candidates for argument about the futility of the policy.
LikeLike
Robin,
No doubt there are such people in abundance. And as they come to realise that their climate-focused arguments are losing their potency they will join the ranks of we who are being ignored. The key question is what will be left within the ranks of those with the unshakable faith, and how much power will they be wielding. I suspect that they will be remarkably stoic in the face of the ‘disagreeable consequences’, largely because they will not find them particularly disagreeable.
LikeLike
John,
We’ll see.
LikeLike
John – from WIKI “metalogic” –
“Metalogic is the metatheory of logic. Whereas logic studies how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments, metalogic studies the properties of logical systems.[1] Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.[2]
The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is known as proof theory.,”
Still none the wiser – thick as a brick as I am – Bing Videos
LikeLike
Articles of Faith
Several times on Robin’s thread, ‘The Case Against Net Zero – a Fourth Update’, it has been queried to what extent religious zealotry (or something similar) is part of the reason for the lemming-like headlong drive for Net Zero. See e.g. https://cliscep.com/2024/08/08/the-case-against-net-zero-a-fourth-update/#comment-154626
Because prof. Mike Hulme’s book “Climate Change Isn’t Everything” represents an important bridge in academic thinking on climate change, I have sought out quotations from it that bear on religious matters. Chapter4, “Why is Climatism So Alluring?” (with subtitle ‘Master-narratives and Polarizing Moralism’) is particularly rich in this regard:-
[page 90] “This chapter lays out four general features of the ideology of climatism that help explain its appeal and wide embrace: its totalizing scope, its gnostic tone, its apocalyptic rhetoric and its Manichean worldview.” See Note 1 below for Manicheanism.
[page 90, section heading] Totalizing Scope
[page 90] “Part of the allure of ideologies is that they promise decisive explanations for what may otherwise appear perplexing, random and unconnected events … The ideology of climatism is no different. It rests on a totalizing and easy-to-understand narrative about the state of the world and it offers an alluring and meaningful agenda for political action.”
[page 92] “Theologian Lisa Stenmark helps us to understand the attraction of such master-narratives …When faced with complexity and uncertainty … the human instinct is to reach out for something beyond ourselves … that can make sense of it all. For many, this leads to an encounter with things spiritual … For others, this religious urge is met through embracing powerful myths or stories … Master-narratives, such as the one offered by the ideology of climatism, meet these criteria.”
[page 92, section heading] Gnostic tone
[page 92] “A second feature of climatism which contributes to is allure is its gnosticism. By this I mean that climatism gains strength and appeal from the nature of the ‘special knowledge’ upon which it rests. Gnosticism is an ancient idea originating in spiritual and religious traditions, in which the principal element of salvation is direct knowledge of the divine …
[page 93] “For climatism, this ‘special knowledge’ emerges from scientific and social scientific claims … This scientific basis for climatism … grants it a distinctive authority and status in most modern societies. If climatism rests on (special) scientific knowledge then … it must be true and reliable … This feature of climatism helps explain its allure. It also explains the frequency with which questions and debates about policies to tackle climate change are deflected to ‘the scientists’ … ‘follow the science’ … Scientists are the ones with the ‘special knowledge’, the truthful insight into the human and planetary condition.”
[page 94] “This feature of climatism is an example of scientization, when scientific statements substitute … for ethical or political reasoning and argument … What are in essence value-based judgements … appear as blunt statements of fact derived from scientific enquiry …”
As an aside we may note that this view is supported by Professor Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT until his retirement in 2013), “To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science.” https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1450473
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
To return to Professor Hulme’s book; the chapter ends with this telling sentence:-
[page 103]. “Reducing the politics of the present and future to the single objective of stopping climate change might be a bad idea.” I have written in the margin of my copy, “Indeed!”
In summary, this chapter reveals that Hulme views religion as one motivating factor among several that lead towards the ideology of climatism.
Note
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Please whenever someone has written a long response, and especially when this covers new ground or develops a new topic, consider if it might be better to consider submitting it as a completely new post. John your coverage of Mike Hulme’s treatment of as aspect of climatism in his book would, IMHO , be such another instance.
LikeLike
Alan, your point is well made. The head post of this thread arose from just such a comment. I suppose a balance has to be struck: we cannot have threads ramifying infinitely. Perhaps threads such as this should be allowed to reach a certain length, with diversions and all, before such a moment is reached?
LikeLike
Jit – just learned a new word from you “ramifying” – will use that to confuse the wife about our shrubs, when she asks what it means, I’ll just smile & say Google it. So that’s were “ramification“, which I’ve heard before comes from!!!
PS – think I just added more ramifying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John R,
A Flipping Good Read: Rupert Darwall’s ‘Green Tyranny’.
Thank you, John, for encouraging me to read this book. It provided a lot of detail, especially historical detail, that I had not known previously. What particularly pleased me was that its main arguments are so very close to my own.
I had argued that, in a process I called “flipping”, the traditional Left (which had originally supported ordinary people and the working class) has been “flipped” to the Right so as to become a major supporter of modern ‘renewables’ which, among their other weaknesses, are far too expensive for both ordinary people and an internationally competitive economy.
Subsequently I had been criticised for calling this a “flipping” to the Right since the economics of modern renewables, which rely on large subsidies, is the antithesis of the Right’s preference for free markets. I therefore adopted the term blight-wing to apply to this policy/economics of rent-seeking which is neither of the traditional Left nor of the traditional Right.
I was therefore pleased when Darwall [page 214] used the term “flipped” in relation to the reversal of policy brought about at the Pew foundation during the 1980s. Darwall remarks elsewhere [page 212] “Climate change is ethics for the wealthy: It legitimizes great accumulations of wealth … The acquisition of green virtue does harm everyone else, especially the least well-off …”
Slightly later [page 217] Darwall records the greatest of all political flips, “Environmentalism fueled by West Coast billionaires and philanthropic foundations meant that working people lost the political party that was meant to represent them. Money can’t buy me love, but it had bought the soul of the Democratic Party.”
My Guardian-reading friends rail vehemently against Donald Trump, apparently unaware of the political “flipping” that has taken place on their watch and in their minds; or as Darwall [page 251] puts it, “The American left’s championing of identity politics and its capitulation to environmentalism has seen it forsake its historic role of promoting the interests of working people, fueling the rise of Donald Trump. From being the voice of working people, the Democratic Party has become the political arm of the Climate Industrial Complex …”
In light of the above, I have been encouraged to read his earlier book “The Age of Global Warming: A History”. It should arrive in the next few days.
Thanks again, John R. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John, this is what James Melville writes on X:
https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1838941371463237904
The Labour Party has been flipped from liberal, left of centre working class to authoritarian, totalitarian, crony capitalist, globalist, sneering metropolitan elite class. The ‘Conservative’ party has reached much the same destination, coming from right of centre, such that there is scarcely any difference between the government and the ‘opposition’. Starmer has been installed to completely dismantle the existing remnants of liberal democracy in the UK and to tear down what remains of our free-market capitalist economy, replacing it with a state controlled command economy based on so called ‘stakeholder capitalism’.
He has made that perfectly clear now, rowing back on his earlier lie of ‘treading more lightly’ on our lives. Now he says that labour will instead ‘take back control’ of our lives:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/24/state-will-take-back-control-of-peoples-lives-says-starmer/
Supposedly, the ‘trade off’ for more pylons – which we “have to accept” – is “cheaper energy” – which of course is absurd because we know that the build out of the existing grid infrastructure needed to connect remotely located renewables to urban centres of population will cost many billions, which will go onto our bills. As I’ve said before, Net Zero is all about exerting state control over our lives and maximising the profits of certain favoured corporate stakeholders which have close financial links to politicians, campaigners and decision makers. A very cosy club, and we’re not in it. Hence the need to control us and stamp very firmly on any dissent or ‘misinformation’ which we may be tempted to divulge online. Hence the need to dispense with liberal democracy and replace it with a form of Marxist/fascist totalitarianism. But is Starmer up to the task? Have ‘they’ already decided that he must be replaced? #Alligate and ‘sausages’ suggests that may be the case. They’re not exactly spoilt for choice with the rest of the half-wits in the cabinet though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John C,
I’m glad you enjoyed Darwell’s book. It is indeed very well researched and very thought provoking.
Jaime,
I’m not quite sure what the Labour Party is anymore. But I do wonder if there is anyone out there saying “Yep, that’s what I voted for”. It seems like a vampire that we have invited over the threshold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking back through my diaries, I see that I spent a dreary Sunday morning exactly 30 years ago working on paperwork for the Labour Party – in those days I was a Labour Party ward secretary. My views have undoubtedly changed somewhat as I have aged and gained more experience of life, but I remain largely in the same place politically as I always was, yet not only do I now shudder at the thought of giving up my free time to the Labour Party, I can no longer imagine even voting Labour. It has indeed “flipped” and ceased to represent the people it was founded to look after. Authoritarian, elitist, nasty, hypocritical, greedy and on the side of “Big Green” against the “little people”, I shudder at what it has become, and I despair. Just as a similar flip by the Democrats facilitated Trump on the other side of the pond, so this already disastrous Labour government may well end up being what propels Farage in to Downing Street. And they’re too stupid to see it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wanted to say a few words about a topic that has worried me. I am not sure it is of fundamental importance but I think it is a matter that needs clarifying for the sake of accuracy. I have set out my thoughts below. In so doing I hope you will forgive me for repeating some of the ideas of Professor Hulme discussed earlier in this thread.
— 000 —
Net Zero: when is a Cult not a Cult ?
Several commentators throughout the many threads on Cliscep use the word “cult” to describe the Net Zero agenda and its adherents. From one perspective this makes good sense since it is a short, well-known word that captures the essence of something rather eccentric. However, I find “cult” to be a troubling word in this context because, for me, the idea of a cult implies a relatively small group of people (compared to the wider population) who are outward looking only to the extent that they are always keen to accept new converts. Nevertheless, the main thrust of the cult is essentially inwards, striving to achieve the cult’s ideals and helping its members to find “the true path” towards those ideals. When viewed by observers outside the cult it is usually, but not always, seen as non-threatening to the health and well-being of the cult’s followers.
The picture above does not, to me, adequately describe Net Zero (NZ) adherence. NZ has influenced a large proportion of the population, the nation’s media and its political class. And NZ strives to influence the whole of society through changing the law to impose and then enforce (and not just tolerate) NZ policies e.g. 2008 Climate Change Act. Thus NZ has long since far outgrown cult status; it has become a major political theme or force. Indeed it became so widespread amongst the leading political parties of recent decades that they were able to make common cause on NZ through the Green Alliance’s campaign of 2015 [Ref. 1]. By acting as a uni-party the pollical parties effectively put climate and associated energy policies beyond political scrutiny and criticism – and well before such scrutiny had had adequate time and exposure in the media to make NZ’s many weaknesses known to the public (e.g. huge costs as measured by many parameters, not just financial costs).
The popular book [Ref. 2] brings together several of the short essays/talks by the very distinguished scientist Richard Feynman. Among the chapters therein are several that address the concept of Cargo Cults [see Note 1 below]. So the question arises, does the “Cargo Cult” concept better describe NZ’s attributes?
Feynman wrote, “In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same to happen now. So they have arranged to make things like runways … to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like head-phones … he’s the controller – and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work …. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they are missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”
Feynman continued, “But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science … It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards.”
It is clear from the way the Establishment’s scientific cadres have conducted themselves over many years in relation to climate change that they have fallen far short of the ideal set out by Feynman. In this sense the Establishment narrative in respect of climate change is Cargo Cult Science. However, the way the cadres have moved into the political arena to support the Establishment narrative means, for me, that they have strayed beyond the realm of even Cargo Cult Science into the political sphere of advocacy. Thus the term ‘Cargo Cult’ is not really suitable either for describing these superficially convincing simulacra of scientists. As individuals they flicker like flames, oscillating between apparent scientific discourse and political support for their cause. I conclude that they are essentially politicians in white coats and should be identified as such. Furthermore, they are particularly dangerous as they are recognised in much of the legacy media as the honest brokers of science whereas they are very often anything but!
It was therefore somewhat of a comfort for me to discover Professor Mike Hulme’s recent book, “Climate Change Isn’t Everything” [Ref. 4]; its subtitle is, ‘Liberating climate politics from alarmism’. The first six chapters are titled and subtitled:-
This is an important chapter as it lists the 10 moves that created the climatism dogma.
3. Are the Sciences Climatist? The Noble Lie and Other Misdemeanours.
4. Why is Climatism So Alluring? Master-narratives and Polarizing Moralism.
5. Why is Climatism Dangerous? The Narrowing of Political Vision.
In this chapter Hulme alerts the reader to (potential) dangers arising from climatism’s too aggressive hold on the public and political imagination. These dangers can be traced back to climatism’s belief that stopping climate change in short order is the political challenge that trumps all others, and that therefore the end justifies the means.
6. If Not Climatism, Then What? Wicked Problems Need Clumsy Solutions.
This book mentions totalitarianism or similar words about ten times in its 200 pages. It thus seems clear to me that Professor Hulme sees this current book as a corrective to what he wrote in an earlier tome [Ref. 5] where he made a call to political arms to climate scientists, “By approaching climate change as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of tasks, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.”
My personal conclusion is that NZ is not a cult, nor a cargo cult, but simply an aggressive anti-democratic political dogma which is using, rather effectively, the white coat of the scientist to cover its regressive redistributive agenda. Fortunately, some (but not all) of the key scientists appear to be waking up to the damage they have helped to cause. Will those in the political class catch up in sufficient time before excessive economic damage is done? I am not at all convinced that they will, although there may now (April 2025) be important stirrings in the UK’s Conservative Party.
In a later posting I hope to further address the political pressures which, as discussed by earlier contributors (thank you!) to this thread, seem to have led to the current state of affairs, and why some institutions have been more affected than others.
Note 1
There are also important references to scientific integrity, intellectual tyranny, evidence, the ignorance of experts, and the risk of scientists fooling themselves [Ref. 3].
References
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John C,
Thank you for some interesting observations, of which I think the following is the most potent:
Thus the term ‘Cargo Cult’ is not really suitable either for describing these superficially convincing simulacra of scientists. As individuals they flicker like flames, oscillating between apparent scientific discourse and political support for their cause. I conclude that they are essentially politicians in white coats and should be identified as such. Furthermore, they are particularly dangerous as they are recognised in much of the legacy media as the honest brokers of science whereas they are very often anything but!
I think Mike Hulme’s repeated references to totalitarianism are not inappropriate. Net zero was a cult in the way that pre-revolutionary Bolshevism was a cult in Russia. The latter took control in Russia just as the net zero cultists have done in the UK. I can overdo the comparison, since net zero advocates haven’t murdered people, but nevertheless there are similarities. The brainwashing of children and students, the obsessive repetition of the official narrative in the mainstream media, and now we have Starmer’s verbal assault on those who are concerned with protecting the beautiful places where they live. He might as well go full Stalin and call them wreckers. Also the repeated claims that expensive electricity isn’t their fault, it’s because of the price of gas. That’s straight out of the Bolshevik playbook, blaming others for the fact that your own mad policies are making things worse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, thank you for these most interesting observations. Please can you say more about the historical comparison you have made with Bolshevism? It is easy to imagine how a party with a monopoly on power (e.g. a uni-party) could brainwash children and have its master-narrative repeated endlessly in the Establishment press. However, are you suggesting that the Bolsheviks were able to achieve this to some degree even before seizing power in Russia in the October Revolution of 1917? If so, how?
I am intrigued. Please say more. Thank you.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C,
I don’t want to push the analogy too far, but I would say this. The Bolsheviks were a fringe group of determined individuals who seized power ruthlessly and ensured that they kept it by denying democracy to the masses while claiming to give it to them.
In the case of climate alarmists, they too were fairly fringe a few short decades ago. They didn’t ruthlessly seize power in the way the Bolsheviks did, but they insinuated themselves into positions of influence. Having done so, they adopted aspects of the Bolshevik playbook, such as I mentioned in my earlier comment. I might in addition have mentioned the refusal to countenance the validity of alternative views – hence the increasingly strident calls for cross-party consensus. In addition it might not be inappropriate to compare Citizens’ Assemblies with soviets – the level of control over those attending will be the same.
However, it was not my intention to suggest that the Bolsheviks had already made such strides before coming to power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, thank you for the further explanation. It makes perfect sense, especially the insinuation into positions of power and influence. However, is such behaviour consistent with that of a cult towards the world outside the cult (i.e. wider society)? I can understand that sort of behaviour operating inside the cult (e.g. Stalin staying behind after committee meetings to “sort out the paperwork”).
In short, I am still struggling with the term “cult”, except in the more restricted sense in which I understand you to be using it.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Well, they have cult-like characteristics. They are too mainstream to be actual cults. But it serves a purpose to label them as such – because of the significant overlap in those characteristics.
Is there a maximum size that a cult can attain before it ceases to be a cult? As mentioned, the Net Zero brigade is thoroughly mainstream. I asked the AI to summarise the internet’s position on this. It noted:
I have looked also at “characteristics of cults”. The internet is awash with lists of such, and there are many varieties, with different characteristics listed. One thing that many of the sets of characteristics include that doesn’t apply to Net Zero enthusiasts is the charismatic leader!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Many thanks John for this article, which I’m ashamed to say I have only just found. Phillip Gray is obviously a must read.
I came to the conclusion that Climatism was totalitarian by an odd route. I’ve often been puzzled by a tendency (which I’ve sometimes shared) to describe climate activism as fascist, when it obviously isn’t. Greens are the last people to submit themselves to discipline under an authoritarian leader. Was there some invisible resemblance that led us to make the comparison, or were we just being rude?
I was reading Kershaw’s biography of Hitler, in particular the part where he discusses when, exactly, Hitler decided on the Final Solution. It seems to be immediately after Pearl Harbour, when the war became truly worldwide. Up till then, different solutions to the Jewish problem had been considered, while they were shunted around Europe in the hope that they would starve to death somewhere and cease to be an administrative nuisance. Once a war for particular goals – revenge and Lebensraum – became a total world war, a total elimination of the Jewish race could be envisaged.
Ecologists have faced a similar problem. “What to do about the environment?” is a question that elicits a thousand different responses, often mundane and boring ones. Climate change has the enormous advantage of rolling a thousand different problems into one big one, with one big solution: change the world. In this sense Climatism is totalitarian.
As you say in your 16th April comment, cults are not totalitarian, since they are inward-looking, but they can become so, if they find a narrative that gives them global significance. I’ve noticed that books on UK leftwing politics from the 60s or 70s often give a page or two to discussing the environment, chuntering on about acid rain and the ozone hole. It’s only when the problem was defined as global that it became central to the policies of the Left, and eventually to the whole political scene.
Read Andy West’s book on cultural narratives for more on this, free here:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/culture/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy West’s concept of a cultural entity subsumes both totalitarian ideologies and cults, and since it comes from the study of cultural evolution, it explains how one can evolve into the other. He also makes special mention of the brainwashing of children, since cultures are deeply embedded in our unconscious and in our social system, and therefore difficult to shift in the case of adults. Jesuits were just as keen as Bolsheviks to get ’em young.
It’s very useful to separate totalitarianism from fascism, as John does here, presumably following Phillip Gray, and to rid it of its necessary link to violence and repression. Marxism is certainly a totalitarian theory, since it claims universal explanatory value. Stalin, curiously, was not totalitarian from the moment he adopted the policy of socialism in one country. The United Nations and its offshoots like the WHO and the WTO are necessarily totalitarian, which is why any movement that aspires to worldwide influence, like environmentalism or big pharma, will seek to infiltrate them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The American commentator and former lawyer Francis Menton at the Manhattan Contrarian website (https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-10-4-the-problem-with-a-regime-the-criminalizes-hate-speech) has a very interesting and disquieting article today which compares and contrasts the current “hate speech” legal environments in the USA and UK – and not to the UK’s advantage.
A few quotes are sufficient to show that the UK is currently in a rather dark place. Menton begins with a summary of the position in the USA:-
“Our [United States] Supreme Court has drawn a line under the First Amendment that makes almost all “hate speech” constitutionally protected, short of incitement to imminent violence.
If you think that that line might not make sense, consider the alternative. Over in the UK, they have seen fit to criminalize “hate speech.” “
Menton continues, “…the UK is now reaping the consequences.
There is a fundamental difference between our [United States] “free speech” regime, and the British “hate speech” regime. Our [American] right of free speech is a right of individuals against the government. It restricts the government as to what speech it can prosecute criminally. The “hate speech” regime now in force in the UK does the opposite: it empowers police and prosecutors to pick and choose whom they want to arrest and prosecute. “
Menton ends his piece thus, “The speech of the political enemies of the [British] regime, even if seemingly innocuous, will be twisted to find “hateful” implicit connotations. Meanwhile, the speech of allies of the [British] regime, no matter how hateful that speech may be or how explicitly calling for violence or even mass murder, will never be prosecuted.
Thank God for our [American] First Amendment, and for a Supreme Court willing to uphold it. “
I recommend Menton’s article to Cliscep readers. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Degrees of Democracy ?
When surveying the present political landscape it is interesting to observe what measure of political influence various categories of voter may have upon the scene because, in current representational democracies or nominal democracies in the West, not all voters are equally influential it seems. In fact, if our voters were transported to inhabit the ‘Animal Farm’ world of Eric Blair (AKA George Orwell) then they might be a little (but only a little) surprised to see that some of the pigs had already started to walk on their hind legs and were rather adept at it.
As an ordinary lone voter – which perhaps helps to explain why mass action can be so effective – one of the few conventional ways in which I can seek to influence my country’s political debate is through writing or e-mailing or, best of all, meeting my MP in person to discuss matters that concern me. A modern variant which combines individual action with mass action is the on-line parliamentary petition. For example, a current petition in the UK is, “Do not introduce Digital ID cards”; as of 10th October 2025 this petition had garnered at least 2,850,000 supporters. The government has already responded [Ref. 1] to these numerous but decidedly ordinary petitioners; the government’s response begins, “We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon.” – for the government’s full response see [Ref. 1].
If, however, I am not such an ordinary voter but have access to considerable financial resources then I can enter the world of political lobbying where professional firms will, for a fee, use their considerable networks to seek to raise my concerns within the political establishment. The UK variant of this world is described by Cave and Rowell [Ref. 2] who, writing ten years ago, estimated that this legal but somewhat shadowy sector of the economy was, in global terms, bested in size by only its Washington and Brussels counterparts.
By contrast, if I am an extraordinary voter, perhaps one who has been a significant actor in my country’s political past but who still maintains close contacts with the current political world then there may be another route whereby policy at the highest level can be influenced on behalf of one’s associates. A potential example of this genre is described in [Ref. 3] which, if it is accurate, also relates (in part) to digital ID. So in a non-democratic contest where one or two super voters are opposed by, say, 2,850,000 ordinary ones then you would imagine there to be, in effect, “no contest” – and it seems you would be right! Unless, of course, our(?) representatives in parliament ultimately decide otherwise.
The polymath Noam Chomsky has variously observed that “Power is increasingly concentrated in unaccountable institutions” [Ref. 4] and ‘If we assume that our own government is naturally more ethical than other governments we are choosing to live in a world of comforting illusion.’ [Ref. 5]. These two observations make me wonder whether the voters of many Western countries (of which the UK is a particularly striking example) are living with the comforting illusion of effective democracy. This raises the question of how the illusion – if it is an illusion – could be transformed into a democratic reality. But that is a big question whose response will have to wait for another day.
References
Notes
Q: What’s worth £200,000,000, answers to no-one and operates out of public sight?
A: Lobbying.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
“Labour rejects Tony Blair’s call for ID cards“
-7th July 2024
“Starmer to announce plans for digital ID scheme“
-25th September 2025
Not a manifesto commitment and therefore a plan that has to be subject to serious scrutiny. Would its inclusion in their manifesto have affected their chances in the election?
Labour were elected by a minority of voters – as is usually the case in recent elections. Is there an argument for some sort of proportional voting to ensure the majority rules? I used to think yes, but now I worry that it would weaken the link between an MP and their constituency. Plus, the idea of two tiers of MP is hideous, as is the corrupt list system that was in place for earlier European elections.
Maybe the single transferable vote is a goer? The major downside might be the lengthy processing that is required when deciding the winner.
LikeLike
Jit, is the lengthy processing time for the STV system such a problem given the hiatuses there already are in the system?
Without going anywhere near Belgium’s record 541 days without an elected peacetime government (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/96893-longest-time-without-a-government-in-peacetime) we might note that following the UK’s general election of 2010:-
(i) the coalition took 5 days to form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron%E2%80%93Clegg_coalition) although, I admit, it did seem much longer to me at the time;
(ii) the exiting prime minister did not resign until the coalition was in place;
(iii) parliament already has lengthy holiday breaks but can be quickly recalled in an emergency.
My own concern is rather broader in that representative democracy in the UK seems to have drifted further and further away from ‘representation of the people’ and towards ‘representation of vested interests’ such that only direct democracy, e.g. referendums, can sometimes correct the misdirection of policy. Which is why I am currently interested in such matters. For example:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Overview
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-democracy/how-swiss-direct-democracy-works/89073820
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
In support of both of my last two comments on this thread I would like to quote Chomsky again, “Everybody has to make sure that the rich folk are happy.” [Ref. 1].
However, I could counter argue that, as internet technology has overtaken the world, the tech giants have accumulated more and more power and wealth [Ref. 2] to such an extent that the balance of power and influence in the world would be greatly democratised if political power was shifted away from said giants and away from corruptible (if venerable but vulnerable) existing political institutions; this suggests to me that more representative voting systems (e.g. STV, direct democracy) are needed now more than ever within those polities that claim to be democracies.
References
1. Paul Kelly (editor), ‘The Politics Book’, Dorling Kindersley, 2013, page 314.
2. Y. Varoufakis, “Technofeudalism”, Vintage, 2024.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I am not at all keen on referendums. They usually signal that the political parties (or the one currently in charge) need the people to solve their problem, but the presentation of a complex issue in binary terms (with a simple vote for yes or no) is rarely likely to lead to a satisfactory outcome.
I opted marginally in favour of Brexit (with my view becoming increasingly entrenched as Westminster and the establishment at large did its best to undermine or overturn the decision) but that doesn’t mean that I thought it was a good idea to hold a referendum over such a complex issue. The complexities became trivialised, there was no party charged with having a plan as to how to implement Brexit, and those campaigning for it could do so safe in the knowledge that they wouldn’t be the ones who would have to make it work. An issue like Brexit should, IMO, have gone before the people as part of a party political manifesto at a general election, and this would have forced the politicians who wanted the UK to leave the EU, to deliver a detailed plan regarding its implementation. That might have avoided the mess that followed the outcome of the referendum.
Our representative democracy undoubtedly works very imperfectly, but it ought to work best when the politicians who campaign for a policy are made responsible for implementing it.
LikeLike
Mark, two points.
(1) Agreed that complex issues cannot usually be sensibly decided by a single binary choice (or referendum), but perhaps complex issues can be reduced to less complex issues by a series of consecutive referendums. For example, with regard to EU membership, an in/out vote followed by referendums to decide the preferred relationship to be sought with the EU (e.g. in/out of customs union). Or perhaps the relationship issue could have been decided by an STV selection process.
(2) Making politicians responsible for their actions would be an improvement on present practice. They usually prefer to leave a good legacy if they can, but too often over the last few years they have just sauntered away when problems arose. However, in their defence, many projects are of sufficient duration that the politicians at the start of a project are not the same as those there at the end. This weakness suggests the need for: (i) division of projects into smaller projects, (ii) robust succession planning, (iii) a pro-active civil service capable of providing or critiquing both project risk & cost-benefit analyses and then supplying the continuity between successive governments.
A significant problem, however, is that discussion with Robin (towards the end of his “7th update thread” IIRC) indicated that the current UK civil service is probably not currently capable of providing the support required. A lot of training will be needed, but that should not be an insuperable problem.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_collapse.pdf
LikeLike
Jaime, thank you for this link as I had not heard of ‘ethicalapproach’. Nor had I heard of the police’s ‘Operation Talla’.
I followed the ‘ethicalapproach’ link and found that it comes from a medical standpoint, which perhaps explains why it relates everything back to the Covid event whereas, for myself, I think many of the bad things that have happened to UK governance pre-date Covid.
While it was useful to have matters laid out clearly in the ‘ethicalapproach’ list, I (and many others?) would have found it even more useful if references to each of their claims had been given. Nevertheless their list resonated with me (e.g. collapse of accountability, an erosion of
constitutional checks). And on other channels (such as, IIRC, Dr John Campbell’s) I recall seeing evidence related to “suppression of evidence pipelines … and obstruction of coronial duties …” which is consistent with the claims of ‘ethicalapproach’.
No wonder our American cousins have sounded the alarm several times this year but, unsurprisingly, TPTB are not listening – presumably because they don’t want to hear. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
The Covid Psyop was the watershed moment on our journey towards totalitarianism as the logical conclusion of collectivism – most strongly evident in public health and climate change policies.
https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1978283652686688561
That essay was written a year ago. The methodology and the recognition of that methodology is now more evident than ever, across all forms of the establishment narrative, from climate to gender to immigration policy to public health.
LikeLike
Jaime, the Covid event was certainly a watershed moment; everything happened so quickly compared to, say, the “CO2 / climate crisis” which is shortly to celebrate its 30th annual COP.
Regarding the coordinated international campaign of videos showing the apparent contradiction of overworked nurses having time (and energy!) enough to practise their dance steps, Fenton & Neil [Ref. 1] say (as I am sure you are aware so please forgive repetition for new readers), “FOI responses show UK hospital ICUs were never overrun with Covid-19 cases. The special pandemic surge Nightingale hospitals never treated a single patient for the new disease.” Shortly afterwards they say, “Large differences in fatality and infection rates point to what occurred in some cities and regions being more similar to isolated mass casualty events than a pandemic.” However, I do not recall the MSM ever broadcasting this simple explanation for the apparent discrepancy.
Perhaps the case above is another example of why sovereign states should cooperate with each other, where it is in their interest to do so, rather than effectively forfeit their sovereignty to supranational institutions like, for example, the WHO or the EU. The principle of state sovereignty, ultimately deriving from the Peace of Westphalia (1648) [Ref. 2], has, I feel, much still to recommend it. What happens, however, when senior state actors are bent upon subverting state sovereignty from within? That seems to be a current burning issue in some Western states.
References
1. Norman Fenton & Martin Neil, “Fighting Goliath”, Sovereign Rights Publishing, 2024, page 349.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
Regards, John C.
LikeLike