Author: The Sophister

There have been many calls to establish blame for the high number of fatalities occurring in the Grenfell Tower fire.

If, as expected, it is established that the cause of many of the fatalities was the polyurethane foam insulation and polyethylene cored aluminium used in the cladding of the building, then it is the politicians and people of the UK as a whole who are to blame, and not any individual or group.

It is the irrational obsession with so called Global Warming and the clamour to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which has resulted in this tragedy. This allowed, indeed encouraged, the use of flammable materials with superior insulation properties for cladding such buildings instead of the more traditional and much safer non-flammable materials such as concrete panels and rockwool.

The same obsession has also resulted in thousands of deaths as a result of encouraging diesel engines with their lower carbon dioxide emissions, even though they emit poisonous nitrogen oxides and particulates which cause premature death for many unfortunate people exposed to their pollution. Incidentally, nitrogen oxides actually produce a greater greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide, but this is ignored.

There is no record of anyone having died directly as a result of global warming, yet many thousands have died as a result of the quasi-religious obsession in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This obsession is in fact a good example of a meme. It is spread by global warming activists and so called climate scientists who make their living by promoting these ideas. Unfortunately, those without a proper scientific education are gullible enough to believe them, and it is this collective drive by so many people that is causing unnecessary deaths.

There was a time when the majority of people believed that the earth was flat. We may laugh at them now, but this is no different and is a lot more dangerous. Do you think that it is okay to rely on our emotions and irrational beliefs in order to create a unified community reinforced by memes, as many religions do, and that killing a few people as a result is an acceptable cost?

When Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement he was accused of putting the USA first. Isn’t it about time that the UK government puts Britain and the health and safety of its people first?

The focus in the media seems to have been on the flammability of the polyurethane. However, in certain circumstances aluminium is also highly flammable. One can see from the picture above that the aluminium component of the cladding appears to have caught fire and burnt away – so it is not just the insulation material which is the problem. It will be interesting to see whether this is taken into account in future regulations, or whether the power of industry lobbyists will prevent it.

One man ( A) is marooned on a desert island – it has only 1 palm tree, and he must sleep up the tree at night or be eaten by crabs.

Some time later another man ( B) then becomes marooned on the island – consider what the men should do.

I was here first – so tough on you – you can be eaten by the crabs. You should accept your fate without complaint – like a Stoic.

I will fight you for the right to sleep up the tree – ie the most powerful wins

I (B) will be your slave if you let me sleep up the tree. Eg a Sceptic’s approach that it is better to be a slave and alive, than free and dead.

I (B) will be your slave if you let me sleep up the tree – but then when I gain your trust I will betray you and let you be eaten by the crabs – ie Machiavelli’s analysis of politics in Italy.

If I let you share my tree you might betray me – the prisoners’ dilemma

Come and share my tree anyway – the Christian ethic

Which do you think is the right way?

Remember that in objective terms there is no such thing as right or wrong. It is a subjective judgement base entirely on one’s point of view.

What if there was no tree and the first man had to build a platform from driftwood to survive?

Currently junior doctors’ core hours are 7 am to 7 pm Mondays to Fridays. It is doubtful that any reasonable person who understands the importance of our citizens having a healthy family life would disagree with that.

Hours worked outside the core hours are paid at a higher rate. Many junior doctors are already required to do out of hours work under the existing contract, and it is only fair that they should be paid a higher rate when they do so. Some junior doctors also work outside core hours by choice, partly because of the higher hourly rates on offer but maybe for other reasons too. That choice is the basis of our democratic capitalist system.

The government are now proposing to change those core hours to 7am to 10 pm Mondays to Saturdays and to force all junior doctors to work during these hours for no extra pay whether they like it or not.

The reason, they say, is that the Government is trying to achieve a 7 day a week NHS because of the alleged higher death rates recorded for patients admitted at weekends. That is where their arguments break down. Independent thinking soon concludes that this cannot be the real reason.

Junior doctors already provide the bulk of medical care during weekends and nights under the current system. If there is a higher death rate at weekends then the reason is not the lack of junior doctors, but is more likely to be the lack of consultants, who tend not to work as much at nights and weekends, or for other reasons unconnected with staffing. Making junior doctors work at weekends against their will is not likely to improve the situation and could even make it worse.

It is true that some hospital trusts are reluctant to rota junior doctors over the weekend because it costs more for the same number of medical procedures. The cost per procedure would therefore be increased as a result.

The obvious solution would have been to require hospital trusts to have the same rota 7 days a week – unless there was a good and demonstrable medical reason not to, rather than just trying to save money at the expense of patient care.

The Trust managers, who are incidentally paid a lot more than the junior doctors, would then have had to manage their resources to spread the available junior doctors over 7 days rather than 5 – if that is indeed what was required. At least that way any changes would be based on sound medical evidence rather than political spin.

In order to escalate the dispute the Government say that they will impose their contract whether the junior doctors like it or not. Unable to manage the NHS in the traditional way they are now trying a totalitarian state system instead. Again, independent thinking concludes that even this threat is nonsense as only 40% of junior doctors are now employed directly under government control. The other 60% are employed by NHS Foundation Trusts who are free to negotiate their own contracts with junior doctors. That is unless the Government intend to use Soviet style totalitarianism on NHS Foundation Trusts too.

The government says that their proposals are “cash neutral”. That means that they are asking the junior doctors to work longer hours including weekends and nights against their will and for no extra pay. Is there any trade union or employees’ representative organisation that would agree to that?

If Transport for London can reach agreement with one of the most militant unions, the RMT, to achieve a 24 hour tube network, then the present government’s failure to reach agreement with the junior doctors over a similar exercise brings into question the competence of that government. The words “piss up” and “brewery” come to mind – or is there a hidden agenda behind the government’s apparent incompetence?

Do you think that the junior doctors should continue their fight with the government in order to protect patients and the future wellbeing of the NHS?

1 September – 1939 Hitler invades Poland to liberate German people living under Polish occupation since the end of the First World War

2 September 1939  – Debate in Parliament – Conservative leader Neville Chamberlain proposes no knee jerk reaction.

Labour deputy leader Arthur Greenwood voices anger at PMs reluctance to honour Britain’s treaty with Poland.

3 September 1939  – A cabinet meeting is held at which Churchill presses for a declaration of war on Germany. Churchill gets his way and war is declared by Britain.

As a consequence millions of UK and German citizens will die. Many millions more Russians will die. Hundreds of millions of eastern European citizens will be condemned to live under a totalitarian Soviet dictatorship for forty years.

Was it worth it?

If Britain had not declared war what would have happened? Hitler would have focussed his attention on expanding into mainland Europe and exploiting natural resources in Africa and the Middle East. It is very doubtful that he would have wasted his time attacking Britain. If Hitler had been successful in capturing significant areas of Russia it is likely that the Soviet Union would never have have been created as we knew it.

Eventually, as always, Hitler’s regime would have over extended itself and collapsed, with a new order replacing it.

Without the war Britain would not have had to rely on immigrants to staff its essential services and allow businesses to expand. It could have focussed on maximising economic success instead of wasting huge resources on the war effort. Was it really worth sacrificing millions of young British citizens in order to avoid this alternative future which in many ways could have been better than what actually happened?

What do you think? Would the world have been a better place in the second half of the twentieth century if Churchill and the other warmongers had been outvoted by the more pacifist Jeremey Corbyns of this world and refused to declare war?

Like most things, staying in the EU will be good for some and not so good for others.

It will be good for business executives. For one thing they will have a larger pool of labour and an easily managed market. It will be good for senior politicians, particularly those with an eye to the lucrative posts available in the EU for retired MP’s, with very generous pensions financed by EU taxpayers.

It would be good for the very wealthy as it provides greater flexibility for their movement and influence within Europe

It would be good for many civil servants whose job relies on dealing with the complex EU Commission directives and rules.

It would be good for France and Germany. The IMF is run by an ex French Finance Minister and so it is not surprising that the IMF have come out in favour of Britain remaining in the EU.

It would be good for the USA as with their special relationship with the UK it gives them direct influence in Europe.

All these parties have a significant vested interest in trying to maintain the status quo.

Messrs Cameron and Osborne have chosen to nail their colours to the mast and so a vote to leave the EU would probably signal an end to their political careers. They would do or say anything to avoid that possibility.

So there are lots of influential individuals with a vested interest in the UK remaining in the EU. On the other hand, it is difficult to see anyone influential who would have a vested interest in the UK leaving the EU. That is more likely to be of benefit to everyone, rather than just a privileged few.

It seems logical that leaving the EU would be good for ordinary working people. There would be fewer EU migrants competing with UK citizens for jobs, housing, schooling and healthcare.

However, that is not the real issue. Most of the arguments about whether to stay in or leave the EU are missing the point. It is not the decision itself which is critical, but what is done afterwards. It is no use leaving the EU unless the government then becomes vigorous and proactive in securing the best deals for the UK around the world and safeguarding the interest of UK citizens above all else.

Equally, the consequences of staying in will depend entirely on what the EU Commission and European Parliament decide in the future, and what their priorities are.

Which is the greater risk – leaving the EU or staying in?

If we stay in the EU our fate will be determined by the EU. We may have some influence, but we do not have any control. On the other hand if we leave the EU we will have full control over our future.

The real issue is whether we think that the UK’s voters are best placed to elect a government which will achieve the greatest benefits for British citizens, or whether the EU voters as a whole are best placed to make the rules for us to follow.

Most of the EU is more socialist than the UK, and so if you are a traditional Labour or SNP voter, then you would probably prefer the decisions to be made by the EU as a whole. If, on the other hand, you are a traditional Conservative voter then you would probably prefer UK voters alone to decide Britain’s fate.

If you are an ordinary working person and have no specific allegiance, but just want the best for yourself and your children, then you will need to judge for yourself which is likely to be optimum way forward.

If the UK leaves the EU, the significant benefits possible will not be achieved for several years. Choosing to leave the EU does therefore require a long term view. If, for example, you have been diagnosed with cancer and only have a year or two to live, then you would probably vote to stay in the EU – unless, maybe, you have children living in the UK and you are more concerned with their welfare than your own.