Without agreeing with everything he says I find Lord Sumption remarkable. His views are worth considering in every case. His powers of analysis are amazing.
An excellent discussion . I like Jonanthan's honesty and also of that of the interviewer . Thanks Chaps . When you are up North in the Uk on tour would be great to hear you .
Excellent! Thank you for your political analysis on the pandemic and the Rule of law, significance of leadership in manoeuvring through world crisis lord Jonathan sumption and Tom Switzer. In a Civilized Society we need a lot of discussion on moral obligation in the current climate situation.
Yes. Whilst the government partied I believe our elderly died lonely and unnecessary deaths. That thought was so harrowing to me. How those responsible are not deeply ashamed is quite astonishing.
That only 5000 people have so far watched this video, is testament to the ignorance of most people on the brilliance of this man and the logic of his position.
My sincere thanks to this man, I followed all of your video's and information that you put out in 2020 regarding the legality of what the government was doing, since, i have studied the law and I legally haven't done anything that the government was saying, I haven't broken any laws or any guide lines. It still shocks me how many just rolled over when told to. The police are lacking in knowledge of the law which again was clearly shown by the way they treated people who were peacefully protesting against the government. The most notable was the old lady who was mob handled and carried into a police van witnessed by Charles walker MP who raised the issue in parliament. All the best.
Professor Sunetra Gupta said more or less the same as sumption on the way to deal with covid, protect the weak and the vulnerable and everyone else carry on as normal. Time has once again proved that all those people who were brave enough to speak out in the beginning were right, they were all heavily criticised for telling the truth. God bless them all.
Whilst I truly appreciate Jonathan’s invaluable analysis both from a historical and societal perspective and for the fact that he has been so outspoken upon such important matters as liberty and the rule of law , would it not be in the best interests of all concerned , if he used his knowledge and probably well connected sphere of influence to challenge directly , the many straw men that stand in our and ultimately future generations way or is he just like most academics and authors just “ mowing the lawn” and cashing in upon the lucrative circuit of pontification , from where he will be consigned to the stuffy corridors of historical data ?
The problem with climate change being tackled internationally is that the solutions proposed by international organizations are deeply flawed and will not solve whatever the problem is (opinions vary widely on the extent of climate change and the impact). For example, there is no doubt whatsoever that so-called renewable energy options will not provide the energy required over the long run. Both nuclear and natural gas will need to be a large part of solutions as far into the future as we can see. Neither the EU nor the current US administrations accept this. Similarly, there is no plan, or even consideration in the EU or the US about what we will do about supplying materials that are used in massive amounts and without which modern societies cannot operate even if climate change is addressed (one example out of many: plastics, which are now and will be ubiquitous in the future in billions of tons, current annual plastic production around 375 million metric tons, many plastics irreplaceable in specific applications and any economically practical approach to recycling on a large scale being decades away). Just stop using fossil fuels and transition to renewables is not a plan, it's a dream, especially in a world in which an event such as the war in Ukraine leads to economic malaise in a world swimming in unsustainable debt and both energy and food insecurity. What's the plan or is sacrificing several billion lives through starvation just a price we (not the collective we, just the select and as always, poor we) have to pay for climate dreams? At the moment, this is where we are going.
Another thing to consider is developing nations have their infrastructure built upon conventional energy sources. The developed nations built their wealth through fossil fuels based infrastructure isn't it hypocritical to deny the same to the developing nations
@@sasankasekharde9835 It is not only hypocritical but just plain stupid policy. We know that low cost energy leads to prosperity and prosperity leads to more concern for the environment plus the resources to do something about it. So denying access to cheap and clean energy (natural gas) to poor countries is counterproductive.
Well said. It is sad and instructive to observe how little climate activists care about improving the lives of the very poor. Some are just plain ignorant about the result of policies they advocate, but some are fully aware of it. It’s the “price” they are willing to pay. Yes, very instructive indeed.
A good place to start would be by demanding people define the terms they use, especially when they're demanding you exist only in compliance with their whim wishing. For example, notice how over the decades "irreversible problems with the ozone layer" (now seemingly strangely reversed) morphed into some potential global warming caused by humans only, then to climate catastrophe and now just straightforward climate change. Unless all of human scientific endeavour based on analysis of actual evidence of geology, plant fossils and isotopes etc are all a myth, I was under the impression that climate change is simply a component of the metaphysics of the universe over the bilions of years of this planet's existence. Things like ice ages, seasonal weather patterns relative to our orbit of the sun and such. In other words, it happens irrespective of human existence anyway. Don't let morons change definitions to suit their own narrative.
Lord Sumption exemplifies the demeanour of someone with whom we may rejoice in agreement, or respect in disagreement. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that Tom had an issue with him, being rather pointed under the guise of devil's advocacy and liberalist challenge, and counterbalancing his antipathy with forced laughter as a mild and occasional concession to his guest. Even Tom's body language, leaning far away from Lord Sumption, supports this notion, although orienting towards the audience and the guest must be a challenge. I'd have to see more of Tom's interviews to know if it's typical for him. That was my take on it anyway. There was a logical discrepancy in Lord Sumption's consideration of the effects of lockdowns, where he correctly states that we could not know what would have happened if Sweden had implemented lockdowns, but goes on to mention the impact of the lockdown on a relative in the United Kingdom. We equally cannot know what health declines may have occurred to a person with a pre-existing condition in the absence of a lockdown. One of the most fundamental questions we have is how much power the government should have, and how much involvement or interference into the lives of the citizens it can reasonably justify. One thing I'll say about the debates on government interventions and lockdowns is that they rarely address temporality outside of the duration of a lockdown period/s as it affects the argument over propriety. At the outset of a pandemic, in a global society that lacked policies and procedures that could be implemented immediately, the lack of preparedness and the paucity of understanding of the virus made the national and global risk greater than 20/20 hindsight has shown it to be. This was exacerbated by the early realisation that China had not taken appropriate steps itself, including advising relevant bodies and governments. I would contend that the earliest lockdowns were wholly appropriate, in the absence of a better understanding, and in the interest of containing the virus. Once it was clear that the virus had not been contained within some countries / excluded from other countries, the rationale shifted, and lockdowns were a harder sell. It may well have been more liberalist to place greater power and responsibility with individuals and organisations. Government intervention would have been limited to upholding the rights of individuals and organisations to take measures in the interest of public health, being the other side of upholding individual rights to not wear a mask or not get vaccinated. Choice, meet consequence. In particular, I completely disagreed with preventing persons from leaving the country. I saw this as beyond the pale when justifying it on the grounds of national biosecurity. It should not have been lawful to restrict leaving the country, just offering the proviso that persons leaving may not be permitted to return, subject to the public health situation. Lord Sumption accurately pointed to the optics of COVID policy and responses as the political battleground, rather than acting in the best interest of the public. Death tolls make for far greater talking points than espousing one's belief in the role of the state, and its responsibilities to the citizenry (as well the responsibilities of the citizenry). It serves a modern soundbite era to speak to saving lives rather than speaking on one's principles and being judged accordingly. It makes everyone unhappy when the focus is on expanding individual rights as far as possible, necessarily to the point at which they conflict with the rights of others. It's risky to acknowledge that availing oneself of individual rights lead to individual consequences, including potential death. This leads to the counterpoint that, in an age where people want rights and power without responsibility and accountability, I would not have trusted my fellow citizens to serve a public good. We saw plenty of COVID-related examples of this. But we get the society we deserve, and, for the most part, we all deserve the opportunity to act out our selfishness and foolhardiness if that is how we're built. We should be free to the point where our freedom clashes with another's. Then, we're still free: free to make a choice to self-limit the exercise of our freedom, eg., to comply with the conditions that protect others' freedoms or to only occupy spaces where our freedoms are unimpeded by others' rights.
@@scottbuchanan9426 the comment is there for those who will read it. It's not a personal favour to me if someone reads it, nor do I take offence if someone doesn't.
@@robs.5847 Considering there aren't many comments....I DID read it and agree. This is yet another problem with public or for that matter private discourse. Saying something worthwhile, and of substance can't be whittled down to a "tweet". Serious topics require serious discussion.....but hey it's easier to have an overpriced coffee, stand around in bullshit protests with idiotic placards like "save the planet"....or "climate change is a hoax". Both as daft as the other. Virtue signalling and posturing about everything is the way citizens choose to engage in nowadays. Alas :(
Is Julian Assange not classed as a journalist? He did not steal the documents? I look forward to making clear those relevant points in addition to what was said.
Did he tell us all about the cestui que vie act 1666 and the birth certificate registering us all dead and lost at sea until we reclaim our living status? NOPE!
Too much here on the culture wars. Sumption points out he has covered it in an hour long CIS podcast already, but the host is determined to plough on with a series of exasperated "oh my gosh! fancy that!" trigger topics. Bit if a waste of time.
He says that we used to think the slave trade was ok, whereas now we don’t. But who does “we” refer to? I’m pretty sure that any slaves on the ships going to work in the sugar plantations didn’t think it was ok. He’s only seeing it from the point of view of someone who would never be a victim of it. By extension, how might a black person in Bristol feel about the statue? The Royal Africa Company had a monopoly on the slave trade in England. Colston was a senior executive of the company for ten years and the deputy governor of the company for two. Sumption only mentions he held shares. (Before this, Colston had made money from trading “other goods”, wine and textiles etc.) As for “philanthropy”, well he didn’t have any children, so what’s he going to do with the money, burn it before he dies?
Do you know whites were slaves to the middle east? What he’s said is that the slave trade was currency for centuries and no one accepted it was wrong until the British abolished it. The statue was about celebrating a man who had a huge positive affect on Bristol despite his dealings in a trade no one today thinks was ok.
What about descendants of those millions of slaves who walk by those statues & feel exactly the same as their ancestors did when they arrived in those shores chained & half dead at the bottom of ships? How is that not a consideration in your guest's conscience?
