logo
Is air conditioning ‘far right?'

Is air conditioning ‘far right?'

Spectator2 days ago
If you want to understand what lies behind the rise of Reform and its consistent – indeed, deepening – lead in the polls, I have a suggestion: French air conditioning.
To be more specific, if you want to understand the difficulty Reform's opponents have in tackling it and why the party's rise seems inexorable, the row going on at the moment in France over air conditioning offers a guide.
The New York Times reports how Marine Le Pen has said, with her typically incisive populist touch in the middle of a heat wave, that if she became president she would introduce a 'major air-conditioning equipment plan' around France. She was backed by an opinion piece in Le Figaro, arguing that 'making our fellow citizens sweat limits learning, reduces working hours and clogs up hospitals.'
With its equally typical tone-deaf response, the French left is using the heat wave to campaign against air conditioning. Libération, the left's house newspaper, called air con 'an environmental aberration that must be overcome' because it uses up too much energy.
We've all heard the arguments many times. But more than that, as Brits we live in a country where air con is viewed by the authorities as something close to evil. In Florida, aircon is standard in 95 per cent of new homes, as in Australia where 75 per cent of homes have it. In Europe, long considered an aircon backwater by Americans, it is present in 30 per cent of Italian homes and 40 per cent of Spanish houses. And it is entirely normal in hospitals and care homes almost everywhere. Except, of course, in the UK – despite the appalling consequences of this. Last year 496 people died in care homes from heat, with a further 473 dying in hospitals.
But there is one argument against aircon I confess to not having come across before, until I read the New York Times report. A French talk show host introduced its debate on Le Pen's proposals by asking, 'Is air-conditioning a far-right thing?'
If you want to take advantage of technology to be cool in your own home, you may, it seems, be far right. Forget the fact that modern air-to-air pumps remove much of the green issues around cooling, for some supposed progressives, the very concept of cool air is seen by some as 'far right'.
Which brings us to Reform, and also to the protests currently taking place outside asylum hostels and hotels. Because if you insist that wanting cool air is 'far right', you are in the same sphere as those who say that protecting borders is pandering to the far right, and that worrying that your neighbourhood is housing sex offenders and dangerous young men also shows you are far right. You are removing any real meaning from the term by using it to describe mainstream ideas held by tens of millions.
And so the more you insist that such ideas are far right, the more you turn your defeat into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Screaming 'far right' at people who want air conditioning won't lead to anyone deciding they would rather sweat in the heat, just as labelling as far right anyone concerned over the influx of asylum seekers in their neighbourhood won't cause them to suddenly take stock and welcome them into the village.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Because the more you label politicians who support ideas which are widely popular as 'far right', and the more you attack those who agree with those politicians, the more likely you make it that those you attack will draw the logical conclusion: that those politicians are the ones on their side. And the more their support will grow.
But more than that, the more likely you also make it that those who really are far right are able to present themselves as being smeared, because the term has become devoid of real meaning.
How is it that such a basic lesson still needs to be learned?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Putin locked in face to face talks on war in Ukraine after US leader flew B2 stealth bomber over tyrant's head
Trump and Putin locked in face to face talks on war in Ukraine after US leader flew B2 stealth bomber over tyrant's head

Scottish Sun

time2 hours ago

  • Scottish Sun

Trump and Putin locked in face to face talks on war in Ukraine after US leader flew B2 stealth bomber over tyrant's head

Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) DONALD Trump had a B-2 stealth bomber fly over Vladimir Putin's head as they greeted each other in Alaska for showdown talks. The pair were last night locked in face-to-face negotiations after the astonishing show of force by the US President. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 5 Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin shake hands in Alaska Credit: AFP 5 Putin shrugs to Trump as he arrives Credit: AP 5 Trump flew a B2 stealth bomber over Putin's head as they greeted each other in Alaska for showdown talks Credit: Getty 5 Trump greets the Russian president on the tarmac in Anchorage, Alaska Credit: AFP Meeting his Russian counterpart on the tarmac at a military base in Anchorage last night, the Americans lined up four £300million F-22 fighter jets on the ground for an historic handshake photo op. The two presidents then had a moment alone in Mr Trump's limo — nicknamed The Beast — ahead of closed-door talks about ending the war in Ukraine. It was the first time in almost a decade that Putin had set foot on US soil. He is an internationally-wanted war criminal for his bloody three-and-a-half year Ukraine invasion. The Russian leader grinned as he and Trump later posed for the world's media. Heckled by journalists over whether he was 'ready to stop killing civilians', the Kremlin tyrant smirked and pointed to the skies. At one point, Putin shouted back to journalists, but it is not clear what he said. Trump also dodged questions on how he could possibly trust Putin. He ducked a planned one-on-one meeting with the Russian leader, instead opting to meet alongside officials including his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. The presidents were expected to host a joint press conference in the early hours of this morning, after the Kremlin expressed wishes for talks to last for up to six hours. Trump Putin meeting erupts into CHAOS as press bombard Putin with questions Ahead of the historic meet, both sides were flexing their muscles. The Russian jet which flew their delegation to Alaska served Chicken Kiev — the garlicky dish named after the Ukrainian capital. And the Americans served waffles on Air Force One — as Trump warned travelling journalists he would walk out of the talks if the pair did not make good ground on securing a ceasefire. Putin was forced to disembark in front of some of the most sophisticated US military kit — and was treated to a humiliating flypast of the US B-2 stealth bomber escorted by F-35 fighters. Hours earlier, Russia's top diplomat Sergei Lavrov swaggered into Alaska wearing a sweater emblazoned with 'CCCP' — Russian for USSR, the initials of the Soviet empire Putin wants to rebuild. The veteran Foreign Secretary was dressed unusually casually in jeans and gilet. Franak Viacorka, a Putin critic from Belarus, said the jumper was 'a clear nod to the Putin regime's imperial ambitions'. He said: 'They're stuck in the past and want to pull Ukraine and Belarus back with them, forgetting we are free nations that will never return to their 'brotherhood'.' The collapse of the USSR led to 15 nations, including Ukraine, gaining their independence. But Putin has called that collapse the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. And he has made no secret of his goal to restore Russia's greatness by recapturing lands. Anton Gerashchenko, an ex-aide to Ukraine's interior ministry, said: 'The Russian delegation are trying to present the Alaska meeting as a remake of the summits of the superpowers.' They're stuck in the past and want to pull Ukraine and Belarus back with them, forgetting we are free nations that will never return to their 'brotherhood Franak Viačorka, a Putin critic from Belarus Trump said a land swap would 'be discussed' at yesterday's meeting. But he insisted: 'I've got to let Ukraine make that decision.' Speaking on Air Force One as he flew from Washington DC to Alaska, he said: 'I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine, I'm here to get him at the table.' And he set the terms of the talks and his hopes of a ceasefire, saying: 'I wouldn't be thrilled if I didn't get it.' He told Fox News: 'I won't be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire'. He also suggested a second meeting could happen, but only if current talks did not collapse. Trump was joined on Air Force One by CIA director John Ratcliffe, Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and his peace envoy Steve Witkoff, who met Putin last week. But former general Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, did not appear to be on board. Trump said he was confident something good would come of the historic meeting. The two presidents have had many phone calls, but this is the first face-to-face meeting since 2019 when they met at a G20 summit. Trump claimed Russia wanted 'a piece' of America's wealth and he welcomed the fact Moscow's delegation included businessmen. He said: 'I notice he's bringing a lot of business people from Russia, and that's good. 'I like that, because they want to do business, but we're not doing business until we get the war settled.' The talks were due to include a working breakfast and 'five-on-five' negotiations. Delegates from both sides were set to be housed on University of Alaska's Anchorage campus as most of the city's hotels were booked out because it is peak tourism season. Russian journalists complained they were forced to sleep on camp cots in a sports arena. Kyiv said Russia had launched almost 100 missiles and drones overnight, of which 63 drones were shot down. And Ukraine struck a gunpowder factory, an oil refinery and a cargo ship on the Caspian Sea bringing in drone parts.

MAGGIE PAGANO: We are all paying the price for Labour
MAGGIE PAGANO: We are all paying the price for Labour

Daily Mail​

time4 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

MAGGIE PAGANO: We are all paying the price for Labour

Eating cake rather than bread is not an option. Blame my Viking-cum-Italian genes. But there are two household staples that we are never without: tealights and olive oil. My addiction is such that I'm eagle-eyed about hunting down the best prices. But here's the rub. It doesn't seem to matter whether you are shopping for candles at Homebase or B&M, or Waitrose or Tesco for liquid gold – prices are soaring again having fallen back after inflation peaked nearly three years ago. As any regular shopper will tell you, so are the prices of most foods and household products. June's annual food inflation rate was up at 4.5 per cent, the third month in a row that prices rose, and the highest since the beginning of last year. Inflation figures for July out next Wednesday are expected to show further jumps. So it's hardly surprising that 85 per cent of adults surveyed by the Office for National Statistics say that the cost-of-living crisis is the most important issue facing the UK today – ahead even of the NHS. About six in ten adults also report that costs have risen in the last month – that's more people citing price rises than in July last year when Labour took office. This time around, rising prices can't be blamed on either the after-effects of the pandemic, which crippled supply chains around the world, or indeed Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which saw the price of wheat and sunflower oils, as well as energy, rocket into the stratosphere. Today's price rises, however, are mainly home-grown, the direct result of Labour's tax hikes. Prices have further to climb because of the Budget tax rises, as even the Bank of England has admitted. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has also warned that the full impact of the last Budget has yet to fully filter through to prices. Labour's policies will add £7billion to retailer costs this year, ranging from higher employment costs to the new packaging tax. The BRC also says that if this autumn's Budget attacks retailers again, with its planned higher business rates threshold on 4,000 larger stores, then it will be poorer families which will be hit hardest. At the same time, the UK's farming industry is being whacked on all fronts, threatening the country's food security. The latest smack in the face is Labour's decision not to give any financial aid to the bioethanol industry after President Donald Trump's tariff hike. Smaller farm owners are being devastated by the new inheritance tax rules and are shutting down. Dairy farmers are closing because of higher costs and worker shortages, opening the door to more imports and less competition. Even the price of bread is now in question. The planned merger between ABF's Kingsmill and Hovis is going to be an interesting test for Labour to chew on. Both Kingsmill and Hovis lose money. Together they would lead the market in sliced bread, putting them ahead of sector leader Warburtons. What's Labour to do? On the one hand the Government will want to show its support for business, giving a nod to the Competition and Markets Authority to pass the takeover. But that means big job losses and a potential monopoly position for its breads, the price of which they may be mindful of has so often led historically to riots. Telling people to eat cake is not an option.

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Rhyl Journal

time5 hours ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly

Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store