Scrappage deal for MPs

Only a few months ago I discovered the existence of the MPs Resettlement Allowance. It's a scrappage inducement to encourage clapped-out MPs to retire and be replaced by new models.

Being in mid-career these consideration did not interest me. I was aware that cash was available for MPs to run down their offices when they lost elections. I look up 'Resettlement Allowance' in the Green Book. It can pay out a maximum of £62,000. In my case it would be £30.000. That's generous compare with redundancy payments available to other workers.  Kelly's proposal is to replace the allowance with about two months pay. That seems about right.

The headlines speak of angry MPs who plan to make a stand against Kelly's plan. That would be foolish.  the public have made up their minds that all MPs are greedy crooks. Any debate or dissent is doomed. Rather Like the Polish calvary charging Panzer tanks. The fragile horses of truth would be crushed  by the mighty forces of prejudice. There is a great deal of rough justice in Kelly's sledgehammer, but resistance is futile.

There is justified public disgust at the excesses of some MPs. We have all benefited from a generous system that we should have reformed. Time for all to grin, accept Kelly's medicine and pay up.

Hockey Stick

One of my correspondents has been got at by critics of the hockey stick graph. When global warming deniers swarmed this site, the ‘hockey stick graph’ was their major obsession.

The end of the hockey stick illustrates the sharp rise in global warming in our times. The "hockey stick" graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings. It shows temperatures holding fairly steady until the last part of the 20th century and then suddenly shooting up

There had been some criticism of the methodology employed in the graph. Gleefully the GW-deniers cult devotees seized on this to claim that GW was a hoax.

Of course this is unscientific and irrational. The fears on GW rest on the conclusion of thousands of studies. New Scientist returns to the hockey stick issue a year ago. The magazine has a great reputation for their objectivity. Their conclusion is the hockey stick graph is valid. Independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilization has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems. This is so much more important than the irrational views of right wing conspiracy theorists who swarmed in here to mouth their ignorance.

In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

Viet Ghosts

Barack Obama is haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam.

22 body-bags in two days. 55 US servicemen killed this month — the war is suddenly coming home to America, in body-bags.

The first senior official has resigned in protest over a war that may be unwinnable. “I fail to see the value in the continued US casualties or expenditures . . . in what is, truly, a civil war,” declared Matthew Hoh, the decorated former Marine who resigned from the US Foreign Service this week. This is very reminiscent of what Senator Kerry said in 1971.' Who will be the last soldier to die for a mistake?'

Pound wise

My friend MP Stephen Pound told me today of an interesting headline when scourge of MPs Legg was asked to chair a committee on weapons procurement. It read, 'Legg heads arms body.'

Comments

[Nursing pajamas]

It's a great post!!! Now it's clear to me...I've learned a lot of things from this post.Thanks.

[anon]

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/scrappage-deal-for-mps.html#comments

[Kay Tie]

"Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993."

So that's 3 x (2009 - 1993) = 4.8cm (to a rough approximation).

The sea level can rise temporarily due to low pressure by anywhere up to 25cm as part of normal weather patterns so there's just no way that a 4.8cm rise can be responsible for widespread flooding in Australia now.

Yes, 59cm is a lot more. And yes, if the Antarctic sheets sheared into the sea it could be bad, very quickly. But to say that things are already terrible is just hyperbole. I'll quote you back an article that appeared in The Times today on just this problem:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece

It's time to let scientists do the proper job of science, not for politicians to cajole them into becoming politicians. We've had enough policy based evidence under New Labour to last a lifetime. No more, please.

[patrick]

Kay Tie
Source New Scientist
"Sea level rises could bust official estimates – that's the first big message to come from the climate change congress that kicked off in Copenhagen, Denmark, today.

Researchers, including John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, presented evidence that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast, contributing to the annual sea-level rise. Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993.

Church says this is above any of the rates forecast by the IPCC models. By 2100, sea levels could be 1 metre or more above current levels, he says. And it looks increasingly unlikely that the rise will be much less than 50 centimetres.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast a rise of 18 cm to 59 cm by 2100. But the numbers came with a heavy caveat that often went unnoticed by the popular press."

[Kay Tie]

"What you did argue about,
the accurate and direct quote in the article from Rabbi Schudrich has been confirmed as being word for word what he said and what he thinks and he has not withdrawn so much as one letter of it."

His quote was taken out of context and he has complained about that. Or did you not listen to the interview? You would be the first to squeal if it was done to you. But you think it's OK for the Left to do that to others, just as you think it's OK to make a twisted and damaging accusation if it's for a good cause (keeping the Tories out). Worst of all is that you're shameless about it!

[Kay Tie]

"I have to admit, I have never liked you"

Likewise dear boy. You demonstrate everything detestable about socialists: bigoted and hypocritical, able to excuse any kind of wickedness if it comes from your tribe (the excuses you made for those making unfounded smears are merely one example).

[HuwOS]

"Quite why you defended those making unfounded allegations is beyond me"

I didn't defend people making unfounded allegations I quite clearly attacked you for making unfounded allegations, and you did so, not just once but repeatedly and indeed are still doing so.

You are a proven liar KayTie, it is a joke to hear you say others have not earned your respect.

Everything you said about the Today programme piece has already been dealt with in previous comments and the one glimmer of truth is that the headline to the new statesman article was misleading, what a pity you never argued that case.

What you did argue about,
the accurate and direct quote in the article from Rabbi Schudrich has been confirmed as being word for word what he said and what he thinks and he has not withdrawn so much as one letter of it.

You simply cannot stop lying can you.
You would easily fit in with either of the two major right wing parties in this country because whether New Labour or the Tories, they are no more slimy, nasty or deceitful than you are.

I have to admit, I have never liked you, you have sometimes strayed into rationality although it has been clearly foreign and unfamiliar ground to you, I however believed that no matter how paranoid and deranged your beliefs were they were at least truly held.
In other words I never had you down as an outright liar, this issue about the New Statesman article however is one in which you have proven yourself to be so.

I shall no longer address comments to you or in response to you, you can waste other people's time correcting your misleading and deliberately false statements.

[Kay Tie]

"It not greedy to expect a little respect for a job that quite often, in the public, is not always appreciated. "

Respect has to be earned. MPs have not earned my respect. They have, as a class, earned contempt. Contempt for the venal ways of a large number of them, contempt for the way in which they have become supine and powerless. Contempt for the ways they have undermined democracy itself.

[Kay Tie]

So that would be a "no" then? Good. Glad to hear it. Quite why you defended those making unfounded allegations is beyond me. Because "the enemy of my friend is my friend?"

I do hope you listened to the Today programme this morning, where all my doubts about the veracity of the New Statesman piece were proved to be right. The quote was a distortion, the headline wasn't justified, Rabbit Schudrich doesn't think Michal Kaminsky is an anti-semite, the criticism the Rabbi makes about the national apology for the Jewish massacres is part of a similar debate in this country about apologising for slavery, not a wider accusation of anti-semitism.

We can see now the whole foul saga has been whipped up by the members of the new Nasty Party to try and wrongfoot the Tories in a bit of domestic politics. The Poles are hopping mad to be branded a nation of anti-semites, and are furious that the Foreign Secretary himself has branded a centre-right party in Poland as Neo-Nazis. The fact that the Labour Party does not matter what damage it causes abroad, regarding the trashing of a whole nation's reputation as mere collateral damage, shows just how low and nasty the next election campaign will be.

[Stephen Davies]

Kelly's plans for two months pay is fair! Even for MP's! Don't forget, MP's have a tough ride to. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. After meeting Paul and watching PMQ's in the gallery, I felt politics, for me, came to life. It was real, and the issues are real. There are a few bad eggs, some a tree short of a forest, and most who work extremely hard for their constituents and for what they believe in.

Something tells me that resettlement must be difficult after spending many years in office as some MP's, I think, would be institutionalised. Politics is a job that not everyone could do and a job that requires a lot of passion and spunk. There has to be some benefits to entice new and old MP's to run for office.

Those MP's who complain are not necessarily the bad eggs (although some may be) but the ones who think they, for all their work, should be entitled to something extra. It not greedy to expect a little respect for a job that quite often, in the public, is not always appreciated.

If MP's only received the same redundency as what the 'average person' gets then that would be unfair! Extremely.

[HuwOS]

What part of

"Let us remember that YOU made a false accusation of anti-semitism against an innocent person based on this single false report. It is time to retract your accusation"
No I did not.

and
I have on no occasion stated that he is an anti-semite
causes you trouble?

As there is clearly no point in expecting even the tiniest modicum of intelligence or capacity from you in this discussion, I am done with you. If you feel you have any questions then read or get someone to help you read my previous comments.

When you develop a conscience and acknowledge the fact that you owe genuine apologies to everyone who has had to read your paranoid and at times incoherent drivel then I am sure you will at some point become courageous enough to be as public with it as you were with your lies and deception.

[Kay Tie]

"KayTie, any question you have asked has been answered."

Sorry, I don't see where you answered it. You did write a huge lot of self-exculpating text (you're obviously getting a glimmer of self-awareness as to the kind of person you have become). But, despite the many words, I didn't detect an answer to the question in your reply.

So please, for absolute clarity, just answer the simple question without evasion:

Do you now, or did you before, accuse Michal Kaminsky of being an anti-semite?

[HuwOS]

KayTie, any question you have asked has been answered.
Any claim you have made has been demonstrated and proven to be false.
Along the way we have also found that you often do not understand what you read and have a tendency to only read the bits that suit you, those you think support your view and you don't always get that right either.

If I were you I would be deeply embarassed by your performance on the Schudrich quote but you are protected from such embarassment it seems by having no shame.

[Kay Tie]

Patrick, how much has sea level risen by?

[patrick]

Kay Tie
From yesterday's independent
"In one coastal town, Byron Bay, in northern New South Wales, where houses are already being assailed by the waves, the Greens-dominated council is trying to prevent homeowners from building sea walls to protect their properties. The council has adopted a policy of "planned retreat", which would allow nature to take its course. The parliamentary committee says that policy may have to be enforced more widely, especially given the fiendishly complex insurance and liability issues raised by climate change"

[Kay Tie]

Very simple question, still not answered. Yes or no?

[HuwOS]

"It was sent to the BBC Today programme. Follow the link I posted."

Yes KayTie, that you find comprehension difficult is something we already understood.
The bit you failed to understand in the BBC article was that the new email from Schudrich was
"sent yesterday to the British think-tank Policy Exchange and passed on to the programme"

[Kay Tie]

"as evidenced by the email being sent to Tory think tank Policy Exchange rather than any normal or even occasional media outlet"

It was sent to the BBC Today programme. Follow the link I posted.

[Kay Tie]

Huw, a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

It's a very simple question.

[HuwOS]

There is no ambiguity at all KayTie.
You are simply again avoiding acknowledging the fact that you tried to mislead people about the quote carried in the New Statesman article and pasted here by Paul and later by me.

My view of Kaminski is irrelevant to the subject at hand but I have on no occasion stated that he is an anti-semite.

The issue was always the validity of the Schudrich quote

again, the quotes in the article

"It is clear that Mr Kaminski was a member of the NOP, a group that is openly far-right and neo-Nazi." Asked about the Tories' new alliance with Kaminski, the chief rabbi said: "Anyone who would want to align himself with a person who was an active member of NOP and the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne, which was established to deny historical facts of the massacre, needs to understand with what and by whom he is being represented."

So that was how it was used in the article but what was the full context of the quote.
Well let's have a look.

The email sent by Rabbi Schudrich to James MacIntyre of the New Statesman in response to a request for a quote.

Dear James,

I do not comment on political decisions. However, it is clear that Mr Kaminski was a member of NOP, a group that is openly far right and neo-nazi. Anyone who would want to align himself with a person who was an active member of NOP and the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne (which was established to deny historical facts of the massacre at Jedwabne) needs to understand with what and by whom he is being represented.

Michael Schudrich
*****************************

The only issue here has been your false claims about the quote in the New Statesman.
Your comments
"which leads me to suspect they've been made up"
"I don't believe those words are an accurate quote."
"the uncorroborated words of Rabbi Shudrich in the New Statesman article weren't made by the Rabbi"
"One notorious lefty rag wrote some words. You choose to believe them despite no corroboration."
"If they said it. If they didn't, it's called lying. Do you think that the quotes in the Daily Mail are true and fair? The New Statesman is a hate-filled rag that will stoop to anything to keep the Left in power."

With the new input from Michael Schudrich, you are left without even the faux veneer of justification you purported to have in those claims.
You know, where you pretended that the quote was probably false because no one else directly reported the requested email quote, rather less than bizarrely Rabbi Schudrich didn't cc in any individuals or media outlets who had NOT requested a quote on the issue.

With the latest comment from Rabbi Schudrich your pathetic tissue thin excuse to attack the quotes as printed has gone.

Keep on scuttling about KayTie, but everyone has seen what you have said and that they were false.

Now that Schudrich has commented again,
you are probably taking some comfort in the fact that under pressure
as evidenced by the email being sent to Tory think tank Policy Exchange rather than any normal or even occasional media outlet, his statement does enough to satisfy the outraged mentally challenged Kaminski supporters,
but you and they should note that he manages to do so without withdrawing so much as one letter from the original quote.
His careful wording while to those not paying much attention might seem to strongly deny the understanding that people drew from the original quote does not actually challenge those understandings at all.

He says it is a "grotesque distortion" to use his quote to "PROVE" Kaminski is an anti-semite.
That does not mean that he does not think that Kaminski is, just that his quote does not prove it (nor was it intended to).
"Portraying Kaminski as a neo Nazi plays into the painful and false stereotype that all Poles are anti-Semitic"
All that line says is that not all Poles are anti-semitic. Which we already knew.

That Kaminski is a strong supporter of Israel certainly means nothing in relation to whether he is anti-semitic or not.
Many anti-semites are strongly in favour of Israel, many who are not are strong opponents of Israel.
All Schudrich has said in essence that you could at all attempt to latch onto in the hope that it shows that he does not think that Kaminski is anti-semitic is that
one last quote "He himself has spoken out against anti-Semitism on several occasions during the past decade."
I'm sure we could find many politicians with vile views who on some occasions have made comments that suggest that they do not hold their vile views.
After all Nick Griffin is apparently not concerned about the colour of people's skin anymore, "Skin colour is irrelevant Jack, skin colour is irrelevant.".
Do we think he is a racist or does the fact that he has said skin colour is irrelevant prove that he is not?

Of course if Schudrich thinks Kaminski is antisemitic or not has no bearing on whether Kaminski is antisemitic or not. As always you are more than welcome to take issue with his opinion or with the conclusions other people reach based on what they understood from what he has said.

So KayTie while you have been shown to have been lying, dissembling and misleading about the quote in the New Statesman article being false, you can pretend to yourself that what people believed Rabbi Schudrich was saying about Kaminski has been rejected by Rabbi Schudrich, you have precious little reason to do so.

Precious little reason, as I have become painfully aware, is generally what suits you, so I am sure you feel utterly happy and justified in that walled up space between your ears. Shaking in terror if you see something with a tinge of red or hear of anything that might be described as left wing (even when you have to stretch imagination to breaking point to describe it so).

From my point of view, the current right wing, warmongering government and the illegal war supporting Tory supposed opposition are of infinitely more relevance and importance than whether one Polish MEP is a bit antisemitic or not.
That the Tories have damaged how they are viewed in Europe and the World by aligning with him, is merely an amusement, the Tories already have a terrible reputation in Wales and indeed most of Britain so nothing changes there and both they and the New Labour government have actual and direct albeit shared responsibility for tens and hundreds of thousands of actual injuries,maimings and deaths.
So whether Kaminski is antisemitic or not
or whether Schudrich believes Kaminski to be antisemitic or not is really nowhere near being much of an issue for me, however your desire to disappear things you disagree with by repeating false statements, implying quotes are made up or misused and impugning sources without justification, basically being a liar and dissembler will always demand a challenge.
Bad luck there KayTie.

[Kay Tie]

"No I did not."

To clear up any ambiguity: you are saying that you did not and do not claim Michal Kaminsky is an anti-Semite?

[HuwOS]

"Let us remember that YOU made a false accusation of anti-semitism against an innocent person based on this single false report. It is time to retract your accusation"

No I did not.

Another KayTie lie, are these lies of convenience KayTie, or just stupidity.

[Kay Tie]

"Wake up ,Sea levels have already risen katy."

By how much?

[Kay Tie]

"KayTie, you did not claim the interpretation applied to the quote was incorrect, you claimed the quote had been made up, falsified, that the words attributed to Schudrich were not his words."

I said I didn't believe the quote because no-one else had substantiated it. The reason no-one else had was because the story was fabricated by taking the quote out of context.

Let us remember that YOU made a false accusation of anti-semitism against an innocent person based on this single false report. It is time to retract your accusation. You're a lefty: just say you acted in good faith with good intentions. After all, that's how any lefty escapes censure for wrongdoing.

[HuwOS]

KayTie, you did not claim the interpretation applied to the quote was incorrect, you claimed the quote had been made up, falsified, that the words attributed to Schudrich were not his words.

The things you said amounted to libel against the New Statesman.

You were wrong.

Honesty really would be the best policy.

[patrick]

Kay Tie
"Utter rubbish. Sea levels aren't going to rise significantly for hundreds of years under all but the most hysterical predictions."

Wake up ,Sea levels have already risen katy.
New South Wales is now experiencing homes being flooded as sea level has risen .There are 700,000 homes in the firing line.

Why don't you e-mail the Aussie government and tell them to let the flooded householders know that sea levels won't really be rising. It's all in their heads and part of a communist plot.

Keep playing the loony tunes!

[Kay Tie]

"The fact was, and remains that the quote in the New Statesman attributed to Schudrich was accurate."

Context, dear boy, context. It wasn't accurate. As the quoted man says himself. You need to understand Richelieu's quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

People like you can never admit that you've been smearing people without justification, for such an admission would undermine your entire self-worth. So you resort to all kinds of self-deception. It's a well-recognized psychological phenomenon (called cognitive dissonance). You believe you are a good person, you've done bad things, therefore you lie to yourself and say that the things you did weren't bad ("I had good intentions", "I acted in good faith") or that you didn't do them, or that they haven't happened.

The latest meme from the left is that Rabbi Schudrich was "nobbled". As that Jan Moir like piece in The Guardian insinuates.

[HuwOS]

KayTie seems unable to keep in her head what arguments she is having or has had and what they are or were about.

The fact was, and remains that the quote in the New Statesman attributed to Schudrich was accurate.

The, for want of a better word, "discussion" that KayTie and I have had was about that.

From Schudrich to the New Statesman
"Dear James, I do not comment on political decisions."
"However, it is clear that Mr Kaminski was a member of NOP, a group that is openly far right and neo-nazi. Anyone who would want to align himself with a person who was an active member of NOP and the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne (which was established to deny historical facts of the massacre at Jedwabne) needs to understand with what and by whom he is being represented."

KayTie claimed it was made up, fabricated, malicious and false.

A selection of quotes from her on that:
"The New Statesman wrote some words and claimed to represent his views."
"If they said it. If they didn't, it's called lying. Do you think that the quotes in the Daily Mail are true and fair? The New Statesman is a hate-filled rag that will stoop to anything to keep the Left in power."
"And what do we hear? That the uncorroborated words of Rabbi Shudrich in the New Statesman article weren't made by the Rabbi"

Latest from Schudrich in an email sent to the Cameron's favourite think tank, Policy Exchange, contains no complaint that he was not quoted accurately but states that he does not like what it is that his quote is being used to demonstrate.

He requests no change to what was quoted, so once again the quote is accurate, despite KayTie's continuous and groundless attempts to make out that the quote was false or inaccurate in any way.

"Time for apologies, I think. Will they be forthcoming?"
It is of course long past time for apologies but the smart money is that KayTie will not withdraw even the smallest of the lies, smears and distortions she has spewed about this and anyone waiting for her to apologise better not hold their breath.

Other than the use to which his accurate quote has been put the chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich does complain about the headline, which could indeed be taken to be misleading as he did not in fact in his quote call for Cameron to sever ties with Kaminski, but then no one here ever said he had and no one expects headlines to do more than give an idea of the complete article.
No one could read his quote and think that he was suggesting Cameron's choice of partner was a good one in fact no one could read it and think he meant that it was anything other than a very bad choice.

The Guardian have more to say on this and I suggest people with any further interest give it a look.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/oct/29/michael-schudrich-michal-kaminski-row

[Kay Tie]

"why is it that MP's think that its OK to say sorry and pay it back "

Ha! We should be so lucky. Jacqui Smith said sorry but didn't pay it back!

[Tony]

How is it that McNulty can just apologise to Parliament - he should be apologising to the public

Lets not mince this - he stole public money - if anyone else did it they would go to jail - why is it that MP's think that its OK to say sorry and pay it back ..

I'm sorry but if this is the reaction to expenses fiddles then you cannot be surprised at the public's anger and complete lack of sympathy all allowances are cut ..

[Kay Tie]

In other news, Rabbi Shudrich ("the Rabbi", as Huw calls him) has just issued this statement:

"There is no doubt that Kaminski is a strong friend of the State of Israel. He himself has spoken out against anti-Semitism on several occasions during the past decade. It is a grotesque distortion that people are quoting me to prove that Kaminski is an anti-Semite. Portraying Kaminski as a neo Nazi plays into the painful and false stereotype that all Poles are anti-Semitic.

I would also like to clarify that the headline of James Macintyre article of July 29, 2009 entitled: "Jewish Leaders Turn on Cameron's Tories: Poland's chief rabbi and others call on Cameron to sever ties with Polish MEP" does not represent what I said to the author. I made no political statement and this headline is misleading and untrue."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8331000/8331339.stm

Time for apologies, I think. Will they be forthcoming?

[Tony]

Well thats a first for me - swarming ..

All I'm asking for is a bit of balance here

'unless we announce disasters no one will listen ' Sir John Houghton , first chair of the IPCC (International Panel on Clmate Change ) Scientific Working Party in 1994 ..

Dr Stephen Schneider , Discover , 1989
Each of us has to strike the right balance between being effective and being honest'

I accept the world is warmer - but I am having some doubts as to why .. and what to do about it ..

And I agree that MP's should get a reasonable pay off - just like the rest of us

[Kay Tie]

"It's not even worth mentioning hockey sticks or deniers at this stage.We only have to look at the desperate concern countries like Australia are presently facing with flood defence."

Utter rubbish. Sea levels aren't going to rise significantly for hundreds of years under all but the most hysterical predictions.

This whole field has been hijacked by non-scientific people with their own agendas. You want to use it as an excuse for bringing communist-style government to dictate every aspect of live because you already think that's a good thing to do. Others have their own motives, not least scientists who want continued and increased funding. Finding the truth amongst this is impossible.

New Scientist isn't objective either: the issue I've just read had an editorial (not on AGW) that read like The Guardian, full of politics and little science, something we've become used to in the New Labour era of policy based evidence where research groups are paid to discover the conclusion needed to provide cover for the settled policy.

[Kay Tie]

"Kelly's proposal is to replace the allowance with about two months pay. That seems about right."

I don't see why it should be less than statutory redundancy of a week's pay for each year served.

[patrick]

It's not even worth mentioning hockey sticks or deniers at this stage.We only have to look at the desperate concern countries like Australia are presently facing with flood defence.

It might be better to shed light on Labour's abysmal failure on the environment.
Don't tell us 'The Tories would be even worse' . That's a guaranteed fact.

We all know that both the sitting right wing government and the next one will have one interest only ...business!

The British public are largely indifferent on Copenhagen and no doubt shameful Labour government incentives to carry on producing palm oil and destroying irreplacable ancient forest.

It's far too soon and too much to expect the British public to forsake their trivial money-driven lives of air travel , alcohol , and obesity and vote for protecting our environment.

Where would be the fun or cash incentive there?