Labour Party members have backed “integrating” private schools into the public education system, effectively abolishing independent education, with the institutions’ assets being seized by the State and “redistributed” to other schools.
They want to nationalise education. They want state-controlled education in which everyone is taught the same thing, and to think in the same way. They want to impose their values on everybody else.
I’m not in the least bit surprised if this is what Jeremy Corbyn wants to do, because Jeremy Corbyn was one of the 90% of Labour MPs who voted for the UK smoking ban of 1 July 2007,
For smoking bans are the imposition, by law, of one person’s values or beliefs or preferences on everybody else: I, Jeremy Corbyn, hate smoking, and everybody else must hate it too. So in wanting to impose his educational preferences on everyone else, he’s doing the same as he did when he imposed his antismoking values on everyone else.
This kind of one-size-fits-all thinking seems to be characteristic of our time. It’s no longer live and let live. Everybody must think the same way. Anyone who disagrees must be silenced. It doesn’t just apply to smoking and education; it also applies food, exercise, global warming, and euroscepticism.
But actually it’s very important that people be allowed to think differently and behave differently. Because if they’re not allowed to, nothing new will ever be dreamed or invented. All innovation would cease.
But also if you start banning everything you don’t like, you’re likely to end up with the opposite of what you want. For example, if the only music I like is Chopin, and I listen to it all the time, and I detest all other music, then if I ban all non-Chopin music and force everyone to listen to Chopin all day, then it’s pretty much a certainty that everyone will end up hating Chopin, and will never want to listen to it again, and will be more than happy to ban Chopin. This wouldn’t happen if I didn’t try to impose my preferences on them, but allowed them to listen to the music that they liked. (This is what I think will happen with the “smoke-free” world that Tobacco Control is trying to impose by law on everyone: people will end up hating “smoke-free” environments, and will eventually ban them everywhere. If you ban something, don’t be surprised if you end up getting banned yourself.)
Another example is that there are a lot of people in the USA who want guns banned. Here in the UK guns are already banned, and so are knives. Now we look set to also ban pictures of knives:
An English police force has stopped publishing pictures of knives confiscated during weapons seizures to “help reduce the fear of knives”.
Pictures shared on social media of a variety of weapons confiscated by police or handed over in amnesties have become a common sight, but Thames Valley Police will no longer be doing so over concern that “knife imagery” could be triggering the public.
So how’s knife crime doing in the UK?
Same with carbon dioxide. The more intensive the attempt to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more of it there’ll be. And it’s my strengthening belief that we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less.
This is because I think people should be much more worried about a new ice age than they are about global warming. The reason is that we’re currently living in a warm interglacial period, and these interglacials never last very long, and we’re overdue for the next hundred thousand year ice age. If it hasn’t started yet, a lot of climate scientists think it’s because of our current, slight, CO2-driven global warming has prevented it. So I think global warming is a good thing, if it’s forestalling the next ice age. And the reason is that a new ice age would be far, far worse than anything global warming can bring. About the worst that could happen with global warming is that sea levels would gradually over hundreds of years rise 70 metres as all the ice in the world melted, and New York would start to look like Venice. But ice ages arrive almost overnight, and blanket entire continents with snow and ice. The start of a new ice age would see Canada and Scandinavia and northern Russia buried under snow, with people deserting those regions and trekking south in their millions. It would be a global catastrophe. And if the likes of Greta Thunberg have their way, and succeed in having the warming CO2 removed from the atmosphere, the next ice age will come even quicker.
But that’s just what I think. You don’t have to agree. And I might be wrong.