Taxpayers are actually contributing to this?

Report warns Hull's climate set to soar

Hull faces more heat-related deaths and an increased risk of flooding over the next few decades, a climate change report has warned.

The document, produced by local strategic partnership One Hull, has examined the impact climate change will have on the city by 2080.

First, a disclaimer: I am sure that One Hull has done some good work, I would love to hear about the positive projects they are involved with which are making a difference.

Secondly, the rant: Why, in the name of all that is good, are One Hull, and by extension the taxpayers of Hull (since One Hull is in part funded by Hull City Council), wasting time and money on a report like this? Put aside, for a moment, any discussions which might reasonably have about how strong the case is for anthropogenic global warming (humans being responsible for a warming of the globe). The Climatic Research Unit and the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia (note the inverted commas, from what I can see scientific method has been replaced by dogmatic adherence to a belief about that the conclusions should be) have done the debate no favours at all with their potentially fraudulent actions. What's more of a concern is the fact that someone decided that rather than asking "how can we encourage businesses to come to Hull now" they instead asked "will our assumption that summers will be warmer in 2080 mean more tourists in the summer".

To all of which, I simply say, stop spending our money on rubbish like this, start looking at ways to lower the business rates to encourage companies to locate themselves in Hull. Too simple? Not high profile enough? Want something more exciting that you can put on your campaign leaflets? Tough, elected individuals don't always get to make the exciting announcements, sometimes they just have to do what's right for their electorate.

Of course, the risk is always that someone will accuse you of favouring the rich by daring to suggest cutting a tax which might possibly allow a company to make more money. To them I say "feel free to keep voting for the other two parties, they will both be more than happy to commission consultants to produce a report telling you what you want to hear." Meanwhile, those who want to help elect someone who will make the tough decisions, however much flack they may get for it, should seriously consider a vote for the Conservatives at the next election.

Simple enough?

Less politics, more science please

Chris Grayling has said the sacking of the Government's chief drug advisor was "inevitable" following his latest ill-judged comments on cannabis reclassification.

I think what he should have said was

Chris Grayling has said the sacking of the Government's chief drug advisor was "inevitable" following their latest ill-judged comments on cannabis reclassification.

I'm a Conservative, I believe in freedom, I believe in personal responsibility and I believe that any government should think very carefully before deciding to reduce people's freedom to make their own decisions. On the issue of drug legislation, science and pragmatism seem to have given way to authoritarianism and dogma, and while this is hardly surprising from the government whose prime purpose seems to be the expansion of state interference in...everything, it is still sad to see.

Sadder to see is that the line being taken by the shadow Home Secretary isn't to slate Labour's actions and defend the practice of making decisions based on good science and what actually makes sense. By effectively siding with Labour on this matter he not only sets a very worrying precedent but also misunderstands the feelings of a lot of grass-roots members of the party who don't think that running government policy "by the red-tops" is the right way to govern.

But hey, the Conservative party is a broad church and there's room for a range of views, as long our policy positions continue to get debated then that can only be a good thing for everyone concerned.