Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid, two contenders to become PM without troubling the electorate first, were both on Sunday Morning this Sunday morning. As part of a quick-fire round of questions, Sophie Raworth asked both if they were in favour of Net Zero by 2050.
Both were, monosyllabically. Unconditionally. Unequivocally.
But there seemed to be a haunted look in their eyes as they affirmed their faith. To me, dunking a croissant into my filter coffee, it said “If I repudiate Net Zero, I’m finished.”
Maybe, I thought. But if you are finished by repudiating Net Zero, the rest of us are damned by you endorsing it. At least, we are if you are the one who elbows all your fellow contenders out of the way and collapses gasping next to the No. 10 foot-scraper, yelling triumphantly as the first one to touch the hallowed black paint on the front door of the First Lord of the Treasury.
And yet both The Saj and The Jeremy were instantly willing to also sign on to the inhumane idea of exporting our migrants to an African country that (I judge) fewer than 10% of the UK’s folk could point to on an unlabelled map. Especially if there were no lines delineating the countries.
It occurred to me that as the list of candidates for PM lengthened, I had simply assumed that all were similarly monosyllabic in their support for apparent over real virtue, i.e. that all would be happy to condemn the UK to sliding out of the first world into the decaying swamps of the post-civilised world to deflect the risk that somebody, anybody, some guy, a nobody, out there in the darkest depths of the internet would jab a finger at them Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers style, and yell out “Denier! He’s a climate denier!”
To test my theory I decided to do a brief trawl through the news to see what the contenders have said about the existential threat of the climate crisis, or whether they perhaps snorted that wind turbines “couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding.” (No, that was not the sun rising you saw on the horizon when Boris tap-danced into 10 Downing Street.)
The following list of candidates comes from the BBC. The text beside each name comes from a cursory internet search (sources below the table).
| Contender | How Not Zero Are They? |
| Kemi Badenoch | “Another worry is that Kemi Badenoch, who is also running for leader on an “anti-woke” platform, also this weekend came out against net zero by 2050” |
| Suella Braverman | “The attorney general, Suella Braverman, this weekend vowed to suspend net zero measures, saying: “In order to deal with the energy crisis we need to suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050. If we keep it up, especially before businesses and families can adjust, our economy will end up with net zero growth.”” * “However, she has never tweeted about climate change or nature…” |
| Jeremy Hunt | “Mr Hunt said: “Now more than ever, in light of the global gas crisis and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it’s vital we decarbonise the UK’s economy by 2050.” |
| Sajid Javid | “Health and Social Care Secretary Sajid Javid said: As a health community, we cannot simply sit on the sidelines – we must respond to climate change through urgent action, with global collaboration at its core. I am delighted that all 4 UK health services are pledging to become net zero and it is brilliant news that dozens of countries have joined the UK in committing to reduce carbon emissions from their health systems – significantly cutting greenhouse gas output around the world.” |
| Penny Mordaunt | “However, climate change is a global issue which requires global action. We must act now, so worldwide we are better prepared to deal with future extreme weather events. If we don’t the consequences could be devastating.” |
| Priti Patel | “The recent anti-fracking protests in Balcombe have shown how parts of the green lobby and its eco-extremist followers have lost all interest in reason. Their dogmatic obsession with opposing efforts to take advantage of new fuel sources, threatening behaviour and acts of civil disobedience not only costs taxpayers money in policing costs and property damages, but it also exposes their naivety and the green lobby’s inability to make credible arguments. “If the green lobby genuinely believed in tackling climate change they would be more open minded to the benefits of extracting shale gas in the UK.” |
| Grant Shapps | “Shapps – like so many of his predecessors – repeats the fairytale promise that we will all be enjoying walking and cycling for almost half of all trips in our cities and towns by 2030. But there was not a single penny in his plan to support this. The current budget of £0.4bn per annum is a tiny fraction of the £8bn the UN says we should be spending annually on walking and cycling by 2025: 20 per cent of the total transport budget.” |
| Rishi Sunak | “Worryingly for people concerned about the environment, Mr Sunak has made it clear he won’t borrow to tackle the climate crisis because he needs to mend the government’s finances.” |
| Liz Truss | “As environment secretary from 2014 to 2016, Truss criticised solar power on agricultural land as harming food security, a claim that wasn’t backed up with evidence. In her current role as foreign secretary, she was recently reported to have ordered foreign office officials to focus international aid on girls and women rather than climate change.” |
| Tom Tugendhat | ““Climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face and I fully appreciate the urgency in our need to combat it,” wrote the former journalist and British army officer in January 2020.” |
| Nadhim Zahawi | “Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi said: ‘We are delivering a better, safer, greener world for future generations and education is one of our key weapons in the fight against climate change. The entrepreneurial, can-do spirit of this country makes me confident that we will win this fight. ‘” |
Conclusion:
It’s hard to be sure but it seems to me that not many have their heart in the green stuff. It’s more a box that has to be ticked. For some it was hard to find a definitive statement about/by them: for Priti Patel, for instance, all I could find were stories about her “tough” approach to XR protests.
And by the way, the Indy’s comment piece on Shapps (not my favourite person, as you may know) has to be read to be believed.
Sources:
Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman – The Guardian
Jeremy Hunt – The Independent
Sajid Javid – Health Dept
Suella Braverman (2nd excerpt), Liz Truss, Tom Tugendhat – New Scientist
Penny Mordaunt – Some Random Gov’t Dept
Priti Patel – Desmog
Grant Shapps – The Independent
Rishi Sunak – BBC
Nadhim Zahawi – EYE
Bonus Quote:
It bears noting that Defra Minister Lord Zac Goldsmith has publicly stated that he believes most of the likely contenders for Party leader are “people who, on the whole, couldn’t give a sh** about climate and nature”.
Lord Goldsmith added: “I have numerous texts from very well-known environmentalists who are shrieking publicly about Boris but who accept privately that his departure is likely very bad news for nature and climate”. These statements came after an earlier tweet from Goldsmith, posted ahead of Johnson’s resignation, in which he stated that the resignation would “most likely” mean the end of the UK’s “leadership on climate and nature”.
EDIE
Climate Scepticism 
Snap! Was just looking at the same Guardian article, Gove having just endorsed Badenoch.
This comment and the one above it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well stated:
“But if you are finished by repudiating Net Zero, the rest of us are damned by you endorsing it.”
Energy is life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whereas I appreciate the effort you have made I doubt that the evidence you have provided is definitive enough to judge the contestant’s true feelings about net zero. In many cases those views are seen through the prism of the ministry administered so it is difficult to judge what their overall position about net zero is.
In any case I doubt very much whether their position re net zero will have much bearing upon who will be anointed.
Anyway thank you for the warning that Hunt and especially Javid are Venusian Treens, deadly enemies of Dan Dare.
Bald, check,
green, check,
evil, perhaps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan: Agreed on the first paragraph. But it’s not just their “true feelings about net zero” that matters, it’s whether they have the courage and skill to confront and outmanoeuvre the vast vested interests by now supping at the climate trough, the nouveau crony capitalists of the pseudoscience movement.
That I disagree with. Tory MPs are turning out to be more climate sceptical than I had realised. This issue will it seems have a lot of bearing on which two candidates get put forward to be voted on by party members. Both a positive and negative bearing, no doubt – but the Tory green lobby is proving to have rather less oomph than the BBC and Guardian had led me to believe. I think it’s all those excerpts I’ve been reading from Mark Hodgson 🙂
It’s almost as if in brave social media efforts like Cliscep we haven’t been banging our heads against a brick wall quite as much as we thought. The message has been getting through.
LikeLike
Richard, I missed those comments at the time because I was listening to Sibelius (having been reminded of it by Brian Cox on Newscast the other day) while delving in the murky waters of the Guardian and Indy, just so others didn’t have to.
Alan, the internet has a lot of information, but it is sometimes difficult to find the bits you are looking for. And there is choice even in the official soundbites from government communiques. Comments made out of government have no excuse.
LikeLike
By Sibelius and “it” I meant Symphony No. 5 in E-Flat Major. After that I went to No. 2, which everyone is familiar with whether they realise it or not.
LikeLike
Sibelius comes first. I can’t argue with that.
LikeLike
Just a reminder that climate change only connect always works:
“Sibelius, Nature and Climate Change” anyone?
http://midtownartscommon.org/events/detail/1910/details/
LikeLiked by 1 person
JIT. I now realise that my statement about views being viewed through a ministerial prism was ambiguous. What I meant to imply was that most of a minister’s statements upon net zero, or indeed any subject, would be heavily influenced by their ministry. In fact I would argue that you had the greatest difficulty finding relevant quotations about net zero from ministers with departments having low to no involvement in the subject.
Richard. My thoughts are that a contestant’s opinions upon future tax policy will overwhelm everything else. Conservative Party Members know this, as do MPs.
LikeLike
John, sorry, but Climate Only Connect has been overtaken by Claudia Winkleman’s One Question to which any answer involving climate change is automatically wrong.
LikeLike
Alan,
COC is my baby and I shall never stop boring you with it.
Never!
LikeLike
Alan:
Strangely enough I’ve just seen that Mr Cummings answered someone about this very thing on the weekend. Note the disclaimer at the end. When he was running Vote Leave he was polling on everything.
I kinda disagreed too but wasn’t confident enough to offer further opinion. It’s a very complex process to predict.
LikeLike
More broadly, I think the four areas elucidated by Julia H-B are important to a fair few Tory MPs
Net Zero she puts second. She’s agreeing with Cummings on the first.
That’s not to say tax is unimportant either. Complex business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard. I don’t believe Cummings is a consistent sage: worth considering but not always correct. Interesting that there seems to be no forgiveness for once holding remainder views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan: Cummings himself says “you only know if you’re polling”. So he knows he could well not be correct.
The forgiveness issue is an interesting one. What counts is how inclined Tory MPs then Tory members (which like Cummings I’ve never been) are going to be to forgive in this area.
I admire a lot of people who voted Remain. Danny Finkelstein would be one of those. His interview of the Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland about his book on Rudi Vrba was deeply influential on me last month. Others not so much. I think most Tories feel the same way. It depends how good people were in accepting the will of the majority, which Danny did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it might be a good idea, when trying to assess where leadership candidates stand on net zero, to see how they voted on the Climate Change Act. However, despite the fact that it’s just 14 years old, of Jit’s list of candidates, only Hunt and Shapps were MPs at the time. So the rest don’t have to ditch their voting record to ditch net zero if they want to.
Of course, while ditching net zero might well play well in red wall seats, at the next general election, which must take place in less than two and a half year’s time, I think we can guarantee that opposition forces would join hands to get rid of an anti-net zero PM with a view to reintroducing it asap. They’ve never got over Brexit. There’s no chance that they’d get over ditching net zero!
LikeLiked by 2 people
These politicos sound like deer caught in the headlights. Or more precisely, like an ancient Semite caught by the Gilead tribe, who demanded they pronounce “Shibboleth” correctly to be identified as friend, not enemy. Obviously they are in need of coaching, and we skeptics are just what they need.
For starters, you sidestep the narrow loyalty oath, and open up the larger context. Like this:
“You’re raising one aspect of energy policy. So let’s be clear: Energy policy is about achieving core objectives – security of supply and decarbonisation – and achieving them at the lowest cost. Neither will be met by purely private markets, since the former is a public good and carbon is an externality not properly integrated in competitive markets.
Furthermore, energy is a primary good for citizens: not to have energy deprives people and businesses from access to the wider economy and to society. It is a core USO: a Universal Service Obligation. That is why energy cannot be treated like any other commodity, as some believe.”
We can’t be one-dimensional to get this right. Security of supply sits in this decarbonisation context, and because many of the options on the generation side are intermittent, security of supply takes on a much more demanding dimension – not just the old question of access to fuels and power, but the ability to handle large-scale intermittency.”
That should be enough to gag the journalist, but if you need more, go to Dieter Helm’s Energy Policy paper: http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/assets/secure/documents/Energy-policy-30.03.2022.pdf
My synopsis:
LikeLiked by 2 people
For some reason, it also reminds me of the classic climate survey question.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just one line from The Times this morning:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-leadership-race-prime-minister-latest-khn5n55fs
News like that about Badenoch will increase the plotting from crony capitalist Tories that she doesn’t make it into the top two. Mordaunt, based on the quote Jit dug out, isn’t going to rock the boat so much.
LikeLike
Can’t disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the BBC live page on the leadership election at 12:27pm
But Net Zero was front and central in what she said – and the two places where she got rousing applause. Which, strangely, the BBC didn’t even mention.
Zac Goldsmith obviously noticed though.
“Unilateral economic disarmament” is a great phrase.
Worth watching here.
She may be out by 6pm but we can hope.
LikeLike
Well, there are strong forces pulling both ways in the Tory party, regarding net zero. Will they split as badly over this as they did over Brexit?
On the one hand, this sort of thing:
“Continue Net Zero business as usual and preside over the worst energy crisis in British history, Tory candidates are warned”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/continue-net-zero-business-as-usual-and-preside-over-the-worst-energy-crisis-in-british-history-tory-candidates-are-warned/
On the other hand, there’s this sort of thing (from the BBC rolling online coverage of the leadership race);
“Over the last 24 hours or so dozens of Tory MPs have publicly backed the candidate they feel is fit to succeed Boris Johnson as leader.
But there are a few who hadn’t decided who to back as the afternoon drew on.
Kingswood MP Chris Skidmore is one of them and he’s been telling BBC News he feels the lack of dialogue on the environment as a leadership issue is a missed opportunity.
“I am a rarity, one of the few who have not come out,” he said.
“My vote is conditional on a leader or a leadership candidate coming forward saying they will continue to back net zero – unless they do that I won’t be backing them….”…”.
LikeLike
On the other hand, one lives in hope:
“The Tory green consensus is breaking – this leadership contest could spell the end of net zero
Helena Horton
The party’s climate-sceptic right wing is succeeding in its campaign to push candidates away from climate pledges”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/12/tory-green-consensus-leadership-contest-net-zero-climate-sceptic
“…None of the leadership candidates so far have made the positive case for green jobs and cheap renewable energy. Instead, the only ones speaking out about climate change are culture warriors Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch, who wish to scrap net zero targets.
As a reporter who covers the space where environment and politics overlap, I’ve watched this happen with a sinking feeling, knowing my worst predictions could be coming to pass. Our net zero commitments could be abandoned without the consent of the electorate as the leadership candidate decides to ditch it….”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then again, in the same edition of the Guardian, by the very same climate reporter:
“New Tory leader won’t ditch UK’s net-zero target, says minister
George Eustice reassures public as he announces 50 landowners have applied to rewilding programme”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/12/george-eustice-new-tory-leader-net-zero-rewilding
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – “Our net zero commitments could be abandoned without the consent of the electorate as the leadership candidate decides to ditch it”
says Helena Horton an environment reporter for the Guardian.
is she new & young I wonder ?
the consent of the electorate was never asked/given when this net zero commitment was imposed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Zahawi and Hunt out as Sunak tops first round of Tory contest”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62144706
That’s two down…
LikeLike
The two candidates who’ve been clearest about the damage being caused to ordinary people by Net Zero, and the need to adjust policy accordingly, got 72 votes in total in the first round. Braverman being the lowest of the six that made it through. If she’s lowest tomorrow she’ll be out. With all respect to Steve Baker and the others backing her, wouldn’t it be better for her to drop out now and we could hope that most of those votes go to Badenoch – plus some that went to the two forced out today? Whatever happens, Net Zero-scepticism has shown its strength amonst Tory MPs and this should allow the leader from September to begin to be pragmatic* in the energy area.
* pragmatic = not continuing to commit economic suicide
LikeLike
From the i comes an assessment of the remaining candidates’ environmental credentials:
Rishi Sunak: “He is yet to announce detailed environmental plans but as chancellor, he repeatedly vetoed plans that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions but would be costly to the public purse.”
Penny Mordaunt: “She has signalled her support for a net zero transition.”
Tom Tugendhat: “He supports the target to reach net zero emissions by 2050.”
Liz Truss: “She was in favour of the plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050 but has not yet publicly backed the commitment.”
Kemi Badenoch: “She branded the net zero climate 2050 target as “unilateral economic disarmament” and vowed to axe it if she enters No 10 as it was set up with no thought to the effect on industries in the poorer parts of this country”.”
Suella Braverman: “The attorney general has vowed to suspend net zero measures.”
i also has the views of Nadhim Zahawi and Jeremy Hunt, who were both eliminated. Zahawi had proposed removing green levies, and Hunt was Yes to national autodestruction.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-leadership-candidates-where-each-candidate-stands-6-key-issues-tax-defence-lgbt-rights-1737221
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting that Jeremy Hunt has been knocked out so early, and that Sajid Javid did not make the starting line. Perhaps it was that unqualified affirmative to autodestruction that they both gave on Sunday Morning?
Richard, since only one is eliminated, then presumably (from a survivalist’s perspective) the rational self-interested Tories would move their support to whoever of the two comes 5th tomorrow for the vote the following day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit: Yep, I was thinking that too. But momentum – or the appearance of momentum – is also important.
LikeLike
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62168213
“Tory leadership race: Where do candidates stand on net zero goal?”
The BBC seems to be breathing a big sigh of relief. The article does not make easy reading for the rationalist who cares about the UK’s future.
LikeLike
Another sentence from the same article is below. Which sly word do I object to the use of here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit, you beat me to it. Probably worth a read. It sounds as though Mordaunt would be a disaster for those of us who believe, like Badenoch, that net zero is a unilateral act of economic self-harm.
LikeLike
Jit (7:36am): My blood started boiling at “the science on which the net zero policies are based”. Must be the heat. No, they’re not based on science, let alone ‘the science’. There isn’t such a thing. Badenoch has emphasized that all good policymaking has to involve assessing tradeoffs. And I already said that. This radical thought is completely absent from the Net Zero dogmatics we get every day from our state broadcaster. I’m not reading the BBC piece. More important things to do. For today, anyway.
LikeLike
Richard, the absolutism of the Net Zero project ought to be a key weakness of it. It only takes a moment’s thought to realise that since incremental cuts in emissions get increasingly costly then there must be a sweet spot for cuts beyond which their benefits are outweighed by those costs.
(To some of us, that point was reached 20 years ago. However.)
The dogmatic pursuit of Net Zero is ultimately destructive. That means that only those who fear disapproval more than they fear real damage to those around them would support it. That means to me that they are not serious people.
Meanwhile, China’s dogmatic Covid absolutism is not going well. I have always thought that the Communists there had an allergy to doing anything that might lead to their people questioning the political status quo. When will the U-turn come?
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a very restrained way of putting it. Staying with the positive I said in August last year:
There are other words than “not serious” for those who choose the other path.
And it’s not cowardice on my part that makes me decide not to use them this time. I soon will 😉
LikeLike
“Tory hopefuls Sunak, Mordaunt, Truss and Tugendhat commit to net zero”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/15/tory-hopefuls-sunak-mordaunt-and-tugendhat-commit-to-net-zero
“Four of the five remaining Tory leadership hopefuls – Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss and Tom Tugendhat – have committed to maintaining the government’s legally binding goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
The contenders for the Tory leadership have signed up to a raft of pledges put forward by the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), including continuing with the post-Brexit nature-friendly farming subsidies and switching to renewable energy.
The other leadership candidate, Kemi Badenoch, had not yet signed up to the pledge, and has previously described the net zero target as “arbitrary”. She has been contacted for comment.”
LikeLike
And yet some of those that we were led to believe have a shade or two of common sense are on the record as backing Liz Truss. What gives?
It seems we are not close enough yet to the cliff edge for reason to reassert itself. Are the main four merely pretending that 2050 is doable, or do they actually believe it? I hope that Kemi Badenoch will at least place on the record a prediction that this will all crumble sooner or later, and that therefore it is better to start the U-turn now. Everyone who signs up to 2050 in government will be remembered, and not for the right reasons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I do wonder if any of these people really understand what most people in this country think.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/669935/80-per-cent-Brits-move-UK-to-RUSSIA-Putin-offers-free-land
LikeLike
Did anyone see the debate on Channel 4? Did Net Zero or energy bills come up?
The way I see it the aim of the green blob has two prongs:
1. Make Kemi Badenoch submit. Failing that…
2. Make it impossible for the new prime minister (if not Badenoch herself) to make her a member of Cabinet
That’s the way the smearers think. But they may not fully get their way.
Or Badenoch may decide to be a backbencher for a while, as the others try to deal with the horrible shocks on the way.
LikeLike
Twitter news special
Times thread on why they think gas will be super expensive this winter
.. https://www.twitter.com/i/events/1547669974340100096
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard, I didn’t see it, but I note that this morning the BBC website is reporting that Badenoch is the only candidate who has not committed to net zero by 2050.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems fair comment.
LikeLike
Fake signatures. Nice look.
Skidmore doesn’t get it. I used this quote in Denierland:
LikeLiked by 2 people
I see that Domonic Cummings has posted his views on all the candidates on his substack today.
Recalling a recent Douglas Adams quote I’m beginning to think that Oor Dom really, really, REALLY doesn’t want to be Prime Minister.
LikeLike
Comments on the new PM and Net Zero from Francis Menton: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-7-14-in-the-uk-some-political-movement-on-the-climate-scare
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conservative Home seems to be pushing for Badenoch to be PM:
“Our Next Tory Leader survey. Badenoch opens up a double-digit lead. Truss, Mordaunt and Sunak are bunched together second, third and fourth.”
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/16/our-next-tory-leader-badenoch-opens-up-a-double-digit-lead-truss-mordaunt-and-sunak-are-bunched-together-second-third-and-fourth/
“…This weekend, the Westminster consensus is that Tugendhat will go out tomorrow, having failed to gain enough from Nadhim Zahawi’s and especially Suella Braverman’s transfers to overtake Badenoch.
Truss, meanwhile, is fighting to get ahead of Mordaunt and make it to the final ballot. Sunak isn’t guaranteed a place in it, but his presence is overwhelmingly likely. He came out fighting in the Channel 4 hustings and is moving into a faster gear.
Truss polled poorly in the wake of them, coming bottom of an Opinium survey of “normal voters”. The Conservative leadership election will of course be decided not by them, but by Tory MPs and then Party members.
Nonetheless, the scene is set for Badenoch’s campaign to attempt the collapse of Truss’s, on the ground that their candidate can beat all comers in a final with members, and go on to seize the public’s imagination.
Tomorrow, we will publish our run-offs between the five candidates, and see if there is any substance for any such claims. Not to mention how the most likely finalists perform against each other.
For as well as Badenoch v all comers, we will have Sunak v Mordaunt, Sunak v Truss, Mordaunt v Truss – and of course Tugendhat’s scores against everyone.
Eight hundred and fifty-one people participated in the survey, which was carried out today – after both yesterday’s ConservativeHome hustings and the Channel 4 debate,”
LikeLike
Mark: Is Conservative Home pushing KB or stating the facts?
Alan will be delighted to read the following quote from Dominic Cummings this morning:
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/snippets-6-the-leadership-race-sw1
He doesn’t even know. Nor do I but it’s looking juicy.
Cummings goes into a lot of detail later on how to split the Treasury – and how not to do so. One of Kemi’s key proposals.
LikeLike
Can’t say fairer than this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The case against Badenoch but as I see it it’s a weak one. UK voters mostly hadn’t heard of her until the last week. If that. A couple of years as PM would change that completely. Whether she could weather the coming economic storms is another question. But I think she’s got a better chance of doing so than the other four.
Will she be given the chance to win by MPs this week? That’s hard to predict. I give one Evertonian the last word on both puzzles.
LikeLike
Richard,
Thanks for following up on that. I suggested that Conservative Home was “pushing” Kemi Badenoch, largely because the polls among MPs suggest she won’t make the last two – in which case under Tory Party rules, it doesn’t matter how much the party members want her. Fingers crossed this nudge will embolden some MPs to ensure that her name features on the ballot before members, to give them a real choice. If not, Parliamentary democracy will continue to be a choice between various shades of grey, with no real democracy in sight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agreed Mark.
LikeLike
Serfs like this. Financial analysist Louis Gave unpacks the West’s self made policy crisis.
unherd.com/thepost/how-the-west-brought-economic-disaster-on-itself.
For years the West has under invested in energy, can’t afford to put sanctions on Russia –
\we just married Russia to China. What is it about those unconstrained elites that ignore
realities? As in pre -World War 11 when Germany was heavily rearming, elites in Britain
were insisting on British disarmament.
LikeLike
Link didn’t work. Try again.
https://unherd.com/thepost/how-the-west-brought-economic-disaster-on-itself/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Penny Mordaunt pledges to create ‘millions of green jobs’ if elected Tory leader”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/17/penny-mordaunt-pledges-to-create-millions-of-green-jobs-if-elected-tory-leader
“Penny Mordaunt has told Conservative critics of net zero that “environmentalism and conservatism go hand in hand” as she vowed to create “millions of green jobs” if elected leader.
The MP for Portsmouth North is the only Tory leadership candidate so far to properly set out views on climate change and the environment.
She made the intervention after a fierce debate over climate targets in her party, with two of the remaining contenders, Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat, critical of domestic carbon reduction pledges. Alok Sharma, the Cop26 president, told the Observer he could resign if the next leader was lukewarm on the environment.
On Monday, Sharma will grill the five remaining candidates on green matters, giving each 15 minutes to speak about what they would do for the environment if elected leader.”
That might be interesting.
LikeLike
I’m just not getting this thread. If you are looking towards the outcome of a democratic process in order to predict how the decarbonisation of society might proceed, then you are looking in the wrong place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I managed to watch the climate change and Net Zero segment of the ITV debate. Most powerful counterpoint: Sunak saying he cares about climate because of his children and grandchildren, Badenoch saying that if we bankrupt the country that will be disastrous for our children. She came under all the ‘consensus’ pressure and didn’t buckle. I was genuinely impressed by how cool she was in doing that.
She did say that she ‘believed in climate change’ as her first statement. Which is fine, because she’s not prepared to parrot green policy prescriptions that normally go with that. Tradeoffs. She’s way ahead of any leading political figure in the UK in terms of telling it as it is. There’s talk of her ending up as Home Secretary under Sunak. We’ll have to see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From The Times this morning. (I went for the £3 for 3 months option just before Boris’s regime fell apart.)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteers-ignore-their-orders-and-switch-to-kemi-badenoch-mg0xksd3r
And the verdict of three columnists on the debate last night, with focus on Badenoch:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-won-the-tory-leadership-debate-our-commentators-verdicts-wmmqzwgnq
LikeLike
“Guardian Claims Kemi Badenoch U-Turned and Now Backs Net Zero, But That’s Not What She Says”
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/19/guardian-claims-kemi-badenoch-u-turned-and-now-backs-net-zero-but-thats-not-what-she-says/
“…Kemi as the straight-talking, anti-woke, Net-Zero sceptical candidate (who also, I understand, opposed vaccine passports from within Government, though behind closed doors) is a breath of fresh air and clearly what the party needs to move forward on issues where the ‘orthodox’ position is increasingly at odds with public opinion and the needs of the country.
Among Tory members at least, Kemi is in tune with their priorities, with the Times reporting that Net Zero has dropped to the bottom of members’ priority list….”.
LikeLike
Mark, if form is anything to go by, the sceptics’ candle is getting blown out today (with apologies for mangling metaphors).
Personally I don’t believe Net Zero is possible. Not with a recognisable UK left at the end of it, at any rate. If I’m right, then the adherence to Net Zero of the other 3 is just virtue signalling. It would be interesting to know whether they believe it is doable at vast cost, or if instead they (as suggested in the OP) think it would be politically suicidal to reject it. I don’t see how a rational PM in possession of the facts would not at the very least soft pedal the national bike towards the Net Zero cliff edge (apologies again for the metaphor).
LikeLiked by 1 person
They will soft-pedal eventually. But continue to do massive damage before that.
Meanwhile Kemi says she’s the unity candidate. If that is true what does it say about the true feelings of Tory MPs about Net Zero?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62216697?pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:acc4ca03-8756-48cb-8b47-0369cda51dc3
LikeLike
It’s down to two. Spotting the one who’s going to be most sceptical of Net Zero in Number 10 isn’t trivial but I’d back New Zero Watch’s hunches here.
LikeLike
Is this off-topic or not? I’d say it’s strongly on topic.
Woke encompasses being orthodox-alarmist on climate and Net Zero.
Badenoch was excellent on both.
LikeLike
Interesting point from one of the most intelligent left-leaning political columnists in the UK media:
But I find I face both ways on this one. Truss looks to be the overwhelming favourite anong Tory members against Sunak but she would have lost, according to polls, against Kemi Badenoch. The body of MPs, including those heavily in bed with Net Zero cronyism, made sure Badenoch wasn’t in the final two, some of them I’m sure for that very reason.
Meanwhile Badenoch has taken the opportunity of the freedom she currently has from joint cabinet responsibility and has written a searing account for the Sunday Times about her inquiries into the Tavistock and the dreadful things suffered by young girls encouraged to ‘transition’ into boys there, with hardly any checks and balances, with no sense of a duty of care. A climate sceptic physicist took up the story this morning on Twitter:
And if any of us is interested in how the anti-Net Zero contigent within the Tories might help win the next election these words from a feminist – and a particularly impressive one, whom I have met – might be worth considering:
I once again assert that this is not off topic here, because in Kemi Badenoch these two mighty causes have found a highly thoughtful, articulate and compassionate voice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard,
An increasing theme here, consciously or otherwise, seems to be that what passes for democracy, in the western world generally and in this country specifically, is looking increasingly fragile, given attacks on dissenting views by the very vocal, well-funded climate-concerned (with their friends in the media to give them ample publicity while denying it to those who dissent); a lack of meaningful choice at elections, given that the mainstream parties offer up only shades of grey with regard to the most important issues of the day (including net zero/climate change); and a push for declarations of emergencies, which might allow the use of emergency powers, thereby side-stepping many normal democratic processes and checks and balances.
I think it’s at least arguable that Tory MPs, knowing full well that Kemi Badenoch offered a real and meaningful choice to Tory Party members, who apparently were rather keen on her, deliberately made sure that her name didn’t make the final two so that Tory Party members couldn’t express their opinion on this real and refreshing alternative. Instead they offer up more of the same old, same old….
They’re not known as the Stupid Party for nothing, of course. In denying the members the chance to vote for Badenoch, they denied themselves their best chance of winning the next general election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, point taken but here are two positives, one from each side of the pond:
Victor Davis Hanson: The Left are now desperate to drop Joe Biden – an hour-long interview of the veteran classical scholar-come-farmer with a young guy from the Telegraph in London who asks very good questions. The Left of the loony net zero type is in desperate trouble in the US if Hanson is right – and I think he is.
What this leadership race tells us about Britain – Our post-racial politics is leaving the Left behind by Matt Goodwin. Similar conclusion within a quite different context.
It’s the desperation of the Left that leads to talk of emergency powers and the rest. We can still make it through. I think!
LikeLike
Victor Davis Hanson makes a key point that is much more true in the US than the UK: the ‘Trump agenda’ as he calls it has become the standard for every single Republican hopeful for the presidential election in 2024. He illustrates this with two policy areas: being for better controls on the southern border and being against ‘green’ policies. This takes you right to that bit:
This is far from the case of course for the two remaining Tory hopefuls for PM vis-a-vis Net Zero. Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman moved the needle to some degree, because any public advocacy of an erstwhile taboo position has real power. But we are way behind the States as we stand. The coming winter may of course change that – and it could also lead to anarchy and extremism, as Ben Pile has been pointing out. Whatever, we’re in a much better place because of the stand Badenoch in particular took, and the votes she attracted after taking it.
LikeLike
“Hit pause on Net Zero, Tory voters advise next prime minister
Poll shows six in 10 of those who voted for the Tories at the 2019 election would support climate policy rethink”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/02/hit-pause-net-zero-tory-voters-advise-next-prime-minister/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting Mark, thanks. Every such poll will strengthen the hand of the new PM if (and only if) they have the courage, skill and desire to take on the Green Blob.
LikeLike
Alok Sharma has been reading some different polls to Mark.
He says they’ve convinced him that Net Zero is a vote-winner.
Ben Pile says that depends on leaving out any mention of the downsides.
And I say that that’s going to be much harder to do after this winter.
How come Tories are still this stupid? Cronyism can only explain so much.
LikeLike
“Tory leadership candidates failing on net zero policies, says thinktank
Research from Onward outlines ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut energy bills”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/22/tory-leadership-candidates-failing-on-net-zero-policies-says-thinktank
“The two Conservative leadership candidates are failing to promise the policies needed to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions, a right-leaning thinktank has warned, despite a clear need for measures that would cut consumer bills as well as carbon.
Insulating Britain’s draughty homes would cost the government just over £1bn a year in grants plus a similar amount in subsidised loans, while a 50% cut in stamp duty could encourage people to install low-carbon heat pumps when they move house, according to the proposals from Onward.
Ministers could also increase the uptake of electric vehicles and other green technologies through “salary sacrifice” schemes, and reduce the number of car journeys through “nudges” such as personalised public transport plans that inform people of their local public transport timetables and cycle routes.
However, while both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak are committed to the UK’s legally binding target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, both want to curtail solar power and onshore windfarms, and support fracking and increased fossil fuel production. While Sunak has promised government support for insulation too, neither has set out a detailed plan on the issue, or on net zero generally.
Alex Luke, author of the Onward report, said it was “natural” that the candidates were focused on immediate issues such as the cost of living crisis, but said the quest for net zero must be “a key priority” for the next prime minister.”
Worrying, in so many ways. Worrying that two senior politicians displaying little evidence that they understand the problems of net zero or have any serious intention of ditching it are described by a “right-leaning think tank” as failing to promise net zero policies. Worrying also that the author of the report thinks that the very policy that has caused the problems seems to think that the answer to the problem is more of the same. Worrying that anyone could think that a cut in stamp duty might encourage the installation of heat pumps on moving house. When and how did so many people cease to understand human nature and lose touch with reality?
Apparently the report has not yet been published (sic) but the Onward website is here if anyone wants to take a look next week:
https://www.ukonward.com/
LikeLike
A Twitter debate about solar kicked off by both remaining candidates ‘grumbling’ about it.
Interesting side-note: James Kirkup has been valiant against trangenderism and Alistair Haimes pretty sensible on Covid (at least as I remember it). But Darwall I’m sure is right here, because Paul Joskow was in 2011.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you keep the costs of intermittency off book, then solar can look very cheap indeed. But that has always been a sleight of hand. The firm generation is still required, and the only possible saving is in the fuel not burnt.
That makes solar a generator that is either a luxury (you have to pay twice for your generation capacity) or for use in desperate straits (off-grid in the middle of nowhere, with no other option available).
The surprising thing is that apparently intelligent people still don’t get it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
Intelligence doesn’t seem to come into it. Some deniers are quite intelligent don’t you know. And likewise people who think climate change will result in earthquakes (I’m looking at you McGuire). Look at the denizens of ATTP, for example. No one could accuse them of being unintelligent but you try suggesting to them that safety-related academic code should meet the same standards as non-academic safety-related code and the response is borderline asinine.
LikeLike
Jit:
Quite. I would call it common sense. You only need a tiny understanding of the way the national grid works and the obvious intermittency of solar to see it.
Yet Kirkup is a smart bloke and has been genuinely courageous about the extreme claims of transgender activists, long before any other prominent journalist would touch the subject. Well, apart from Janice Turner of The Times, as he would freely acknowledge. See for example this from a grateful female on Mumsnet in May 2019:
So I deduce that Kirkup must be genuinely deluded on solar. This cannot be driven by cowardice.
(I also deduce that the fightback against transactivism is now well ahead of us in popular and highbrow culture, given the lack of nominations of climate sceptics for the Orwell Prize!)
I applaud your efforts to explain the basics here on Cliscep, for the benefit of such people, by the way.
LikeLike
As everyone will know by now, Truss has made Kwarteng the new Chancellor, which is underwhelming news. However, this is interesting (personally, I think giving R-M any important job is a mistake, but it’s a straw in the wind so far as concerns the new government’s approach to net zero and renewables, perhaps?):
“Jacob Rees-Mogg, who decried ‘climate alarmism’, to take on UK energy brief
Minister expected to add climate change to role after Liz Truss fails to hire dedicated energy minister”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-climate-alarmism-uk-energy-brief
If he does seek to push back the net zero agenda, no doubt he will meet resistance:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Mark for the normal Guardian Groan (on their side and mine). The sister article by Fiona Harvey, dated one minute later, is headlined Record of climate denialism indicates how Rees-Mogg will handle energy brief – Green businesses and investors say prospect of green energy sceptic as cabinet minister in charge does not inspire confidence. It starts
Actually, I’m all for Tom Burke talking about “the complexity or opportunity of net zero”. As complex as getting blood out of a stone. I also agree with your reservations about R-M in other ways. But good vibes here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What doesn’t fill me with quite the same vibes is Truss making Kemi Badenoch Trade Minister. Here are some tweets that I respectfully listen to, not necessarily agree with
I agree that this is not like Thatcher.
And from earlier in the day:
And she’s been much the most vocal about Net Zero. And articulate. And convincing.
We’ll just have to see how it all pans out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have been disappointed before. Do we dare, and do we dare?
… ‘In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.’
H/t Prufrock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heh. Did she really! Has any party with a single MP ever wielded such influence on Guardian news articles? Lucas’s tweet is not news. Anyone in the country could guess what her opinion of Rees-Mogg might be.
The “climate breakdown” is a fantasy. Regarding it as not an emergency is an accurate assessment of the facts.
There seem to be a lot of “green Tories” whining to the Guardian without going on the record. In the wrong party perhaps, since the Guardian is the flagship paper of the Labour/Lib Dem/Green mass in Westminster.
Yuk. Why does anyone listen to people whose stated demand is to make Britons poorer? Let Burke go away and bring down his own energy demand if he likes. Meanwhile back in the real world, energy use is wealth. If energy gets cheaper, we all get richer. The poorest most of all.
Edit: mangled the close quote tag
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Graham Stuart MP Appointed Minister for Climate and Is Attending Cabinet”
https://www.grahamstuart.com/news/graham-stuart-mp-appointed-minister-climate-and-attending-cabinet
Does he just feel he has to say that, or does he mean it? And if the latter, what exactly does he mean by it?
LikeLike
Still, the BBC seems to be worried. 🙂
“Liz Truss cabinet: Key ministers raise climate targets doubts”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62822941
Then comes the very dubious propaganda:
And having told us where it stands, the BBC goes back to worrying:
Finally they cite a BEIS survey which produced these results in spring 2022:
Did they learn their techniques in North Korea. The survey includes this statement which, frankly, I find unbelievable:
The BBC opened its article up for a “Have Your Say”. Admittedly many of the climate concerned aren’t happy, but there are quite a few comments (which have attracted thumbs up signs) like this:
It makes you wonder where that 1% figure comes from.
LikeLike
Tom Burke yesterday:
Caroline Lucas today on PM:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001brpt
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Fracking won’t cut energy prices, Liz Truss told
The Prime Minister remains committed to the UK’s target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/09/07/truss-fracking-ambitions-fuel-opposition/
LikeLike
Mark, there seems to be a concerted effort by what certain people might call the “Green Blob” to convince us that the price we pay for gas is independent of the proportion of gas that we produce domestically.
We had Deben (CCC) on Today, repeated in a package by Justin Rowlatt on the 6pm news saying that we have to pay the world price for gas and more domestic gas won’t make it cheaper. On PM we had Sir John Armitt saying that we had to pay the world market price come what may.
The implication is that our governing class are either being economical with their understanding of economics, or else their supply of brain power is unequal to the demand they are placing on it.
What they are saying is that everywhere around the world pays the world market price for gas. Fortunately for us, that is not true, and it is therefore either a lie or a confession of stupidity.
Today, 7.ix.2022:
UK price: 402p/therm
EU price: 267 Euros/MWh = 683p/therm [divide by 34 and multiply by 87 pence per Euro]
US price: $7.82/MMBtu = 68p/therm [divide by ten and multiply by 87 pence per dollar].
I just wish that when these People of Importance say these things that the interviewer would sometimes respond with: “So UK consumers are paying the same for gas as US consumers? Uhuh. What about Russian consumers? Do they pay 402p/therm too?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – think Jit nailed it at 07 SEP 22 AT 7:33 AM
“There seem to be a lot of “green Tories” whining to the Guardian without going on the record.”
this may have happened in years gone by, but it seems to be a new reporting style, which I find “dodgy to say the least” – reporter can just make up a story from snippets heard & not have to name names. we all know how badly wrong this can go
you can always find someone to say what you want to hear. (just watch the BEEB climate interviews)
LikeLike
dfhunter,
Yes, the “green” Tories should be named (and shamed!).
LikeLike
“MPs call on Liz Truss to hold to net zero target after campaign pledges
Exclusive: 29 MPs and peers urge new PM to recommit to target after her campaign promised to expand oil and gas production”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/07/mps-call-on-liz-truss-to-hold-to-net-zero-target-after-campaign-pledges
This is where a reality check is needed. When they say the actions of the UK government will have a noticeable impact on the lives of people in the UK and across the planet, they mean with regard to the climate. And of course that is patently nonsense, given that the UK emits around 1% of global human-created GHGs, while emissions are rising around the planet. A true statement would be to the effect that the actions of the UK government can have no noticeable effect on climate in the UK or around the world, but could have huge impact on people’s wallets and purses and could be the difference between blackouts and the lights staying on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This doesn’t look terribly encouraging. Do Turkeys vote for an early Christmas?
“Liz Truss appoints green Tory Chris Skidmore to lead net zero review
Former energy and climate minister will look for the quickest ways to reach the emissions target”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/08/liz-truss-appoints-green-tory-chris-skidmore-to-lead-net-zero-review
LikeLiked by 1 person
“As the former energy and climate minister who signed net zero by 2050 into law, I’ve been determined to show that net zero isn’t just about going green; it is essential for future economic growth. One of the reasons why I’m out on tour with the all-party environment group which I chair is to demonstrate how net zero is going to benefit the lives of people across every region.”
let’s hope he’s not high on something all the time & won’t fall over his chair (4 legs & all that)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Untrue. If Net Zero was cancelled, the entire country would receive an automatic and long term boost – as long as all parties agreed that it would never be re-imposed until it was affordable.
As I may have said before, there are explanations for such comments as the former minister’s, and they don’t reflect favourably on the person who said them. No intelligent person who had examined the facts in detail would or could come to that conclusion. Net Zero makes everything more expensive, it makes everything less productive, it makes us ever more dependent on dictatorships and more vulnerable to power outages. It makes the poor poorer, while only benefiting a few. It increases “real” pollution in favour of small reductions in a trace gas that is the root of all life on Earth. One day Net Zero might be a net benefit, but there is no earthly way that could be the case now.
Oh yeh – and Net Zero will have no effect on the UK’s weather, it won’t affect global temperatures, nor will it “tackle the climate crisis.”
The display of virtue trumps pragmatism at every turn.
If only we had people in the media who would dare to ask the right questions when they interview ministers and former ministers and opposition figures.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The greens theory is that renewable energy is cheaper
therefore in the future electricity should get cheaper
Liz truss has said that half of the price of today’s electricity will be moved forward until the future and we’ll pay it back then
why would greens be afraid of that?
are they expecting to make big savings in the electricity price in the future so they should have spare cash 2 in the future pay back half of today’s prices.
LikeLike
Mark:
It doesn’t surprise me in the least. Until Monday Truss was trying to win the support of Tory members, who are more climate sceptical (informed) than the general voting population. She is now trying to win over the Whitehall media circus as a perceived route to voters. (A bad route, as Dominic Cummings has not only preached but proved, in the remarkable case of Vote Leave. But Cummings is not Truss’s favourite pundit. As an aside
is one part of what DC was retweeting yesterday.)
Jit:
You don’t mention nuclear. But then the loudest and craziest advocates of Net Zero disallow it too.
Still, I think we should always break it out. Otherwise agreed, of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or, as Jonathan Jones put it long ago: Dash for gas, then amble to nuclear. Both parts reducing emissions.
LikeLike
And now there’s the question of a new king:
“Charles will not cool on climate action, say friends”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62876790
Yet again, I find myself disagreeing profoundly with Justin Rowlatt’s musings. Laws can be changed – that’s what our elected politicians (plus those unelected ones in the House of Lords) do. For a monarch to express support for something opposed by many people, and which is controversial, despite being enacted (don’t you just love his use of “enshrined”?) by Parliament, is of course controversial. It amounts to campaigning against changing the law, which is just as political an act as campaigning for a law change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: I’ve just read Danny Finkelstein in The Times about Charles being the ‘Defender of the Faith’ as the saying goes. (I’m a firm nonbeliever in the idea of a state church, anywhere, so it’s not my phrase. But it is the one that is used.). Anyway, like lots that Finkelstein writes, even when I disagree, it made me think. Here’s some
My emphasis. I think Danny has got Charles right here. And that feeds into his attitude to the need to curb man’s emissions, to Net Zero, as the impossible nightmare is now called.
I also think that Cliscep would struggle dealing with and debating this ‘higher’ level, even though I think it is crucial to where King Charles lands on things we really care about.
Anyone’s hackles raised by that? Lol.
What about this passage later on?
My bold again. I have a lot of sympathy with Danny at this point. Others with a ‘contempt for all religion’ may very much disagree that they are likely to be the problem.
Too deep for Cliscep, despite the words about quasi-religion on our About Page?
Difficult. But I’ve given some excerpts. And that’s only because Mark had done the same to Rowlatt which I saw just after reading Finkelstein. And Rowlatt I am very very bored with!
Source: Charles shouldn’t fear defending the faith (paywalled)
LikeLike
Richard,
As a non-believer who struggles with religions (though I wouldn’t use the word “contempt” since religions can have good aspects, as well bad, IMO) I do profoundly disagree with Finkelstein’s take in all respects. However, that’s probably all that it’s wise to say – deep waters, as you say – and I’m in danger of having gone seriously O/T on Jit’s thread.
LikeLike
Contempt for religion? Here’s a stand-up comedian’s joke about religion and climate change in a 1991 episode of Van der Valk that was repeated last night (from memory): ‘I’ll tell you another thing that’s bad for the world: prayer. All that hot air increases the greenhouse effect and on their way up to heaven the prayers poke big holes in the ozone layer.’
(The comedian was murdered soon afterwards by – SPOILER ALERT! – Bernard Woolley in a fat-suit.)
LikeLike
JIT,
I know that you looked at Jeremy Hunt in your article, since he was (briefly) one of the runners and riders to be Tory Party leader and hence PM. Well, now it seems he is PM in reality, if not in name. Here’s the Guardian:
“Jeremy Hunt claims to be a green Tory. Now is his chance to prove it”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/17/jeremy-hunt-claims-green-tory-chance-prove-it
LikeLike
Stet.
LikeLike
During Brexit the mantra was ‘take back control’
Were the events of the last fortnight what they meant by being in control?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s play musical chairs or perhaps capture the flag!
LikeLike
Richard, is that a bet on Johnson?
LikeLike
Jit: An interesting question of authorial intent (which after all is key to hermeneutics).
But no, much though I like to be thought wise both before and after the event, in this case if Boris returns, I meant that as of yesterday afternoon your post itself returned from the dead.
With a yawn. (Not your fault – let’s just say other people’s fault. But what an almighty bore. We’re all resigned to it I suppose, boom boom.)
I was amused to learn that the hapless Tory minister on the Question Time shift complained that he had had no advanced warning and learned about the resignation by watching on telly. His name: Graham Stuart. Did that ring a bell? Not at all. Was he one of the MP bigwigs of GLOBE in March 2010? Hmm. To say I’d forgotten that would be too strong but it’s there as a ‘known fact’ in my wiki.
Bit Rot of course dictates that
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi328.htm
no longer tells you that. Neither does Andrew Orlowski but that remains a great article from that time.
The Rot goes deep and that remains the problem
LikeLike
Talking of being an almighty bore, I went into Wayback Machine and found a version of that parliament.uk page as of April Fool’s Day 2010: click here. Steve McIntyre also did Globe International on 24th March. There is Graham Stuart, anyway. What does that mean? More importantly, what does the (relative) secrecy of the outfit mean, with Lord Oxburgh taking advantage of that fact? Does it mean John Ridgway was right to say this page was ridiculous, first time around? Or at least that the authorial intent of some of us on this thread was ridiculous? (I’m paraphrasing. I could look for John’s exact words but I shan’t.) Because the fix has been in for so long in the Tory party? (Then the ‘Main Opposition Party’, note. April Fool’s Day indeed.)
I’ll leave the questions open. But go Kemi!
LikeLike
Here’s the Guardian’s take. I’m sure we’re all thrilled:
“How green are the Tory leadership candidates this time round?
Fiona Harvey and Helena Horton
After Liz Truss’s ‘war on nature’, we look again at the environmental record of the most probable crop of hopefuls”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/21/how-green-tory-leadership-candidates-liz-truss-environment
LikeLike
One Net Zero fanatic has dropped out. Boris Johnson drops out of the leadership race. I just looked at the right moment!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That must mean Sunak will be PM tomorrow afternoon. I don’t even remember his statements on energy policy and the purported, fantastical justifications thereof. What I do remember is him having a photo of Nigel Lawson carrying his red briefcase as Chancellor in the late 80s prominently on the wall in his office. Now he, unlike Lawson, has got to the top job. I just wonder.
LikeLike
The Tory MPs are mostly soft, green things like canned peas. Sunak will realise that if he dares say NO to N0 he will suffer a rebellion among those who prefer an easy life in an impoverished country.
At least it won’t be Johnson. Any alternative beats a comeback from a rambling dissembler who was forced out last Tuesday.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Here’s a hilarious example of Bit Rot:
— SHARED Zahawi switches from Johnson to Sunak in minutes
Tim Montgomerie commented on this on Radio 5 Live, in two hopeful directions (IMHO): Zahawi has highly embarrassed himself and, more importantly, Boris will be felt to have betrayed many like him and this will wreck his chances of ever becoming leader again. His cunning plan (according to one Dominic Cummings way back) of getting Truss in, who he knew would be a disaster, so that he BoJo could return, has been shot down in flames. A fantastic relief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was the Net Zero fanatic being completely truthful last night? Well, of course …
LikeLike
Here’s an appointment and promotion I’m really delighted about.
And here’s David Rose in the Mail on Sunday in February 2019:
— Tory peer in £600,000 conflict of interest: Climate Change chief John Gummer faces calls to quit
Fearless there and fearless over the transgender issue except even more so. Good call.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I won’t try and explain but Lilico’s thread shows exactly how we didn’t get the best anti-net zero candidate for Tory leader and prime minister. Very very poor. H/t Jonathan Jones
LikeLike
Yesterday our PM showed just how in touch he is and how much he respects the intelligence of his people.
Where was the cry of “Don’t patronise us, Loadsamoney?”
Soon he will be gone, and we will see how antihuman Mr. Starmer turns out to be. Then it will be 2029, and potentially time for a minor reset.
LikeLike
By the way, the link is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66521633
LikeLike
When he says “the government had covered it” he means that the taxpayer covered it, which means we all paid it in reality, just via stealth taxes rather than via our energy bills. So yes, he is patronising us. Do politicians really think we’re all incredibly stupid?
LikeLike
“Rishi Sunak ‘poised to revoke ban on onshore windfarms’ – report
Ministers hope to make it easier for councils to pass planning applications for new turbines in move that has Labour support”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/03/sunak-poised-revoke-ban-onshore-windfarms-report
It doesn’t seem to matter who is PM, we get the same net zero policies.
LikeLike
Mark, it appears that the softening was not softening enough. On today’s PM the BBC managed to find a nice “balance” by interviewing someone who wanted lots more windfarms and contrasting that position by interviewing someone who really really wants lots of windfarms now, and thinks the opposition to windfarms is owing to soon-to-be-ex ministers wanting oil jobs after the next election (? his mad conspiracy theory was a little hard to interpret, but I think that is the gist). There is apparently no valid reason for anyone to oppose windfarms; anyone who does so, has an ulterior motive principally based on greed.
But don’t worry, we are the mad ones.
Alas, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall could not hear me shouting at him.
LikeLiked by 1 person