It’s the 3rd of May 2024, and Keir Starmer has been to visit HRH. Rachel Reeves is the Chancellor, and Ed Miliband is the Environment Secretary. Cheering people line the street as the Labour juggernaut glides past, “Things Can Only Get Better” blaring out.
What is the UK’s climate policy?
Well, it centres on Net Zero, of course. The delays – or slight hesitations – planned by Rishi Sunak are no more, and we are back on the Johnsonian path to ICE destruction. Sunak himself has exited the stage, either to set up a charitable foundation or to start a Peters & Lee tribute act with his missus. Regarding the UK’s electricity system, we are now implementing a compendium of delusional policies – delusional to the extent that I would hesitate to build a fictional world based on them playing out as they are intended to because of its lack of believability. The “plan” will save £93 billion for UK households, deliver 100% clean power by 2030 by quadrupling offshore wind, tripling solar, & doubling onshore wind, cut energy bills (£1400 off the annual household bill), create 1,000,000 green jobs, deliver energy security, make the UK energy independent, and be run and built by Brits.
Like I said. Delusional. Although that is like calling a dragon a large lizard. It’s actually incomprehensibly stupid, at the level of a plan steamed up by a committee of poached eggs. However, that is (nominally) what we are in for, and that is only to speak of electricity. You can read Labour’s plan at the link below, if you do not have a wall to bang your head against in preference.
What happens next?
Well, it depends on a number of things, in my view.
The Size of the Victory
If the margin of Labour’s victory is narrow, then a Conservative opposition has immediate leverage. It can make a nuisance of itself straight away, including in opposing Net Zero. But if there is an inverse-Johnson victory [the original’s mandate having been heroically squandered since 2019], then sceptics are in for a long five years. But a dark thought occurs to me now, which is that if Labour fail to squeak a majority and have to form a coalition, then if anything climate policies are likely to be more extreme than if they win outright – something that hardly bears thinking about for the future of the UK.
The Politics of the Rump
Another important question is what the politics of the Conservative survivors will be. Instinctively one might think that the survivors will be more right-leaning than the average, but the harvest may be indiscriminate. How this plays out will naturally help to determine the new opposition’s receptiveness to splitting from the Net Zero consensus.
Murder by Gaslight
Let’s say that the newly-minted leader of the opposition phones me up to ask my advice. He or she wouldn’t, true – and I wouldn’t answer the phone anyway [I never answer if I don’t recognise the number. No offense, whoever the hell you are. Leave a message if you have something to say. Your call is important to us, etc]. But let’s pretend that they called and I answered.
Where do I think the Conservative opposition should pitch their climate policies? Can they afford to ditch their support for Net Zero?
My answer is yes, and I think this policy is essential simply because it opens up a battleground where none exists at present. Any political party with an ounce of gumption will be able to swing public opinion away from Net Zero, while increasing its popularity at the same time. The present gaslighting we are subject to thrives on the Borg-like uniformity of present party policy. One only has to look at the Climate Change Act and the incremental tightening of its noose around the UK’s neck to know that there has been a shameful lack of scrutiny and opposition for fifteen horrifying years. Under these circumstances, the public is told that our woes are a terrible disease that we are inflicting upon ourselves by merely trying to get by. This abhorrent lie is 180 degrees away from reality. Our woes are caused by the medicine we have been given to cure this supposed malady.
Opposing Net Zero offers an easy way to land blow after blow on the new administration and its unicorn-farming policies. We have the cost. The loss of freedoms we usually take for granted. The side effects. UK’s inconsequential contribution to the problem, and the question of China. And the new opposition will be able to offload the baggage of Net Zero, which after all was if not born under its party’s watch, was brought up by it. The new leader can and must repudiate the absurdity that has gone before.
To put it simply, if the weight of Net Zero was removed from this country’s back, the UK would spring up so far that it would probably reach the latitude of Iceland. But for the end of Net Zero to even be a glimmer on the horizon, its vast costs and its lack of substantial benefits have to be more widely understood – hence the need for an opposition that opposes. At the moment we the people are under the impression, for example, that because the wind is free, wind power must be cheap. We think that all we need to do is to stop mainlining fossil fuels and we will be transported to the sunlit uplands. But as sceptics know, this fairy tale transformation will hit hard, and keep on hitting hard, the people who [perhaps implicitly] support it until we are rid of it, and for quite a while afterwards. Net Zero is a giant leaky balloon kept inflated by a constant flow of hype, delusion, noble lies and free money. It is high time for the balloon to be irreparably punctured.
Jit’s tuppenceworth
So what would I advise the new leader of the opposition to offer? Net Zero should be an aspiration, not a statutory obligation with a fixed implementation date, Nature or physics or gold be damned. The UK’s international commitment should be watered down; our promise should be to keep pace with the rest of the world’s emissions cuts, so that we will be at or below the average per capita carbon dioxide emissions going forward (relatively painless to achieve, given that we are, perhaps surprisingly to some, on the cusp of that now anyway). So there will be no more self-inflicted wounds until the rest of humanity join us in self-harming behaviour.
It’s time we were forthright about Britain’s history. The Industrial Revolution has become a badge of shame, which is a perverse situation only possible thanks to the freedom that it bought us. Yes, it brought pollution. But the real pollution has been mostly dealt with – in the West, at least – and carbon dioxide, a gas essential to life on Earth, has become mislabelled as a demon.
There should be no bans on ICE vehicles and no subsidies for EVs or their infrastructure. Petrol stations were not built by governments, but by entrepreneurs hoping to make a buck. So should charging infrastructure be. I would replace VED with a tax hypothecated for road maintenance, based on the mass of the vehicle.
What about our collapsing electricity grid? There should be no new subsidies for intermittent energy sources and/or energy sources that place strain on the grid. Let contracts with wind farms be for them to provide electricity when the UK wants it, not when the wind blows. That means as equivalent firm power, or however it was described in the Helm Review. [The same applies to solar.] At the same time, I would remove derogations for killing protected birds, and levy enormous fines on wind farms that kill them. [Yes, and pay the extra to bury cables.]
The only viable electricity future I see is gas to nuclear, which has the benefit of making the UK energy secure in the long term, is a low carbon source of electricity if anyone cares about that, and obviates the needs for hundreds of miles of new grid connections all over the show, buried or otherwise. There is a benefit to moving generation close to where it is needed, after all. There is of course the rather large problem of how to build nuclear power without the need for massive subsidies.
There should be no bans on oil and gas boilers. No mass insulation projects. If you want to mandate a new building standard for insulation, and that new builds must have heat pumps, so be it. But the old housing stock just can’t take it.
Schemes like ULEZ should be subject to local referenda. If people want it, give it to them. If they don’t, it is not for a virtue-signalling elite to decree it from on high. [I’m not sure how such referenda would work, bearing in mind that some people outside the zone would be affected by it.]
There should be no more loss of good cropland, because food security is likely to be as important in the future as energy security. Knowing that vast arrays of solar panels do not offer energy security, they will no longer be permitted except on buildings.
End Note
Net Zero had better be possible, because H. sapiens will eventually run out of fossil fuel. But that will happen over time, and as fossil fuel becomes harder to find, its alternatives will become naturally more competitive.
Well – that would be something like my answer. What would other Clisceppers say?
Featured image
Defunct Topshop, by the author
Climate Scepticism 
Good one Jit. By an interesting coincidence, the Manhattan Contrarian comment I just posted HERE seems very relevant.
A comment: I think Sunak is likely to defer the election for as long as possible, so the Starmer visit to HRH may not happen until January 2025. Net Zero is already unravelling and that I think is likely to accelerate over the next year – so that by the end of next year even Miliband may be becoming dimly aware of the impossibility of the whole project. And Rachel Reeves will be only too aware of its economy destroying potential. In other words, the reality that Net Zero is utterly delusional will be becoming increasingly obvious sometime before the election. Of course, the new government will blame the Tories. But that won’t change reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, we here have been amusing ourselves on Robin’s threads, and on yours on Sunak’s shuffle, by contemplating whether politicians (or perhaps Tory politicians) might wake up before the next general election and realise that net zero is a superb issue on which to open up clear blue water between them and the other parties. Sadly, with each passing day it seems to become clearer that all political parties have signed a suicide pact regarding UK energy policy.
And so it probably does make sense to move on here and to contemplate what will happen at the next general election and thereafter. Despite Labour’s attempts to self-implode over its response to the Palestine crisis, it still seems likely to form the next government, either on its own, or as far and away the largest party in a coalition of net zero loonies. Thus, despite my natural antipathy to the Tories, I find myself wondering whether they will have the gumption after a crushing electoral defeat to elect a leader who will make an about-turn on net zero, and use it as a stick with which to beat the new government. It’s an obvious thing for them to do if they have any sense, but to date they have demonstrated all too clearly that they have absolutely no sense at all. Still, at the moment they seem to inhabit some sort of fantasy-land where they think they are a functioning government and might even be so after the next election. All we can do is hope that when reality hits them hard in somewhere between 12 and 14 months’ time, they wake up and smell the coffee.
Even if that happens, however, I fear that we are in for a very grim 5 or 6 years before the next but one general election. And by then, we might well be well and truly stuffed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, you wrote, “Sadly, with each passing day it seems to become clearer that all political parties have signed a suicide pact regarding UK energy policy.”
They did indeed sign such an agreement back on Valentine’s Day in 2015. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband pledged to work across party lines to tackle climate change for Show The Love, as shown in this link:-
https://www.theclimatecoalition.org/show-the-love/
Thus it still seems that the Climate Uniparty elite is intent upon destroying the UK economy by forcing us all over the EROEI cliff by whatever means are at its disposal. This is levelling down in action – it is frightening, horrifying and futile. But where is the criticism, let alone the opposition?
Regards, John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Net Zero is not a suicide pact – it’s a democide pact. How could it not be? Deliberately driving an advanced, energy dependent civilisation over the EROEI cliff will result in mass loss of life. It won’t be the politicians implementing the ‘just’ energy transition who lose their lives; it will first be the sick, the poor, the elderly and the vulnerable, but even the young and the healthy will eventually succumb to such policies if they reach their logical conclusion.
LikeLike
There are 2 areas I find difficult to accept , firstly our projection that politicians do not personally suffer the same effects of NZ as we do. Not all have Sunaks mega wealth, most have families who will feel the surge in inflation raising prices in everything , the cost of energy/fuel and housing. Even if they believe in NZ , CC etc surely financial sense will prevail ??? Secondly, why are we still so reliant on the EU for our agricultural needs? If CC is bringing warmer weather why are we not growing more of what we need? I’m beginning to believe farmers don’t know how to after years of belting out barley for brewing and distilling. The development of cereal crops to suit the conditions/climate of good growing areas is old news, but, when do you get regular supplies of a nice bit of broccoli from Wales or a nice cauliflower from Ireland, we get brussel sprouts from Dundee but mostly strawberries that taste like turnip even the Spanish strawberries taste like turnips. Potatoes seem to be the only produce we get regularly from UK growers, even they can be a bit second class. Come to think of it we seem to get a lot of slightly second grade produce , probab!y been sitting in Dover for months.
LikeLike
Pre-election planning. I hope that Labour do not get in before 2025. This should give us time to sell our house. We’re thinking of a narrow boat but it’s an expensive option and there are too many opportunities for the state to control what you do in my opinion – you’re rather a sitting duck on the canals. Living truly mobile in a motorhome is an attractive proposition but again, the restrictions and extra costs imposed by the Net Zero fanatics may make this lifestyle unviable. So we’re thinking of buying land/derelict property and siting a static and setting up off grid solar for power, wood burner/propane gas for heat, not connecting to the grid at all, growing food, keeping chickens etc., basically building in as much independence from state control as we can, figuring that the next decade is going to be horrendous and not a good time to be a sitting target home owner, especially in town.
LikeLike
I would be surprised if Sunak waits until the last minute to call the election. There is no point waiting for reinforcements unless there is a realistic prospect that some are on the way. Also, the longer you leave it, the more desperate you seem.
Jaime, the narrowboat life seems charming – and at least you can weigh anchor and move to the next local authority if things are not going well. From what I have read, the battle in some LAs seems to be against boat owners who never move. (Which often seems reasonable if they have children at school.)
James, it is not permitted to say “food security” because i) it would reflect badly on those idiots who want to carpet the UK’s sunniest spots in solar panels and ii) someone might notice what a perilous situation the UK is in generally in this regard.
LikeLike
“Nick Rose resigns as Conservative candidate for Norwich”
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/23940189.nick-rose-resigns-conservative-candidate-norwich/
This all happened in a big rush – Nick’s candidacy was announced on October 30th, and the Greens called for him to resign the same day because of his climate scepticism. His withdrawal comes today, November 22nd.
I met Nick a couple of days ago and had a conversation with him about Net Zero – he was opposed to it. I agreed to vote for him on that basis, and told him, and believed, that he had a greater than evens chance of being elected, although would be sitting in opposition. He has been undone in the last two days, not for his comments on Net Zero, but because of comments on toilet politics and boat crossings he made at a Question Time-style event at a local high school. But thinking about it tonight, I realised that if I was advising a candidate, I would have to tell them to be bland on toilet politics, boat crossings… and if my candidate believed that Net Zero to be a national suicide project, that it might be wise to keep that to themselves as well.
LikeLike
Latest odds at Paddy Power:
Kemi Badenoch 2/1
Tom Tugendhat 4/1
Priti Patel 13/2
Robert Jenrick 15/2
Suella Braverman 17/2
Jeremy Hunt 17/2
Choose wisely, Conservative members: unless the parliamentary rump stifles your voice and stitches things up amongst themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Safe Tory seats (the few remaining) in the last two months have wanted to select reformish candidates but CCHQ has insisted on stiflers. Much though I love Paddy Power I don’t think this has been factored in. But go Kemi!
LikeLike
*reformish and stiflers need careful definition, of course
LikeLike
I could write the speech for you now, if you want:
“The British people have spoken and they have made it clear. They have rejected the Conservative’s half-hearted pretense at achieving Net Zero and are demanding a massive drive for clean energy. Well, we have heard you Britain and we will not let you down”.
From now on, any objection to Labour’s actions will be portrayed as an attack on democracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John R, I reached a related, jarring conclusion when I heard our new PM say in his Downing Street address, “Have no doubt that we will rebuild Britain with wealth created in every community” and shortly afterwards say, “The opportunity of clean British power, cutting your energy bills for good.”
For me, this evident contradiction was not a good start to the new premiership; it reminded me of the Jaime/Robin discussions about where on the line from naiveté via cock-up to malignity our new masters will situate their and our energy/climate policies.
I am afraid – indeed deeply saddened – that this does not sound like Sir Keir’s “politics of public service” to me; rather it risks being more of the same old crony capitalism and its rent-seeking. I hope I’m wrong, I really do, especially as Sir Keir also said that his government would be “unburdened by doctrine”. But I remain to be convinced – but it is only Day 1 of the new dispensation. Regards, John C.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/full-prime-minister-sir-keir-124849135.html?&ad=dirN&prod=HP&cmpgn=oct21&annot=false&sameTabLaunch=false&o=APN12175&installSource=direct&browser=Chrome&darkMode=false&lang=en_gb&ueid=96B0ECCB-1BA5-4BBF-8027-8CB9C6AFEEC4&doi=2022-01-23&guccounter=1
LikeLike
IF (and I emphasise if) a majority of the voting population voted for Labour, including their stance upon Net Zero, then any attack upon Net Zero and Labour’s move towards it could legitimately be construed as an attack upon democracy.
LikeLike
Alan,
…it could legitimately be construed as an attack upon democracy.
Yes, and that is exactly what it will be construed as. The problem is that most people do not vote for manifestos, they vote for concepts. In this case, the primary concept was ‘punish the Conservatives for everything they did’. Unfortunately, those who woke up this morning to see that their lust for punishment has been well and truly satisfied will have also signed up to a whole lot of grief of which they are currently only dimly aware. Once the penny drops, and they start moaning, Starmer can then shove his vast majority down their hapless, vengeful throats. That’s democracy in action.
LikeLike
Also, let us not forget that, as a result of our voting system, Labour won 63.7 per cent of the seats available but with only a vote share of 33.8 per cent. That’s a very large section of Britain from which Starmer cannot claim a mandate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really ought to avoid commenting upon politics. I tend to get too involved and come to regret it. But I must comment upon your predictions of large majorities. My memories of them in the past are different. Large parties tend not to be coherent and there is a greater tendency for a part to split off and ultimately vote against the government. I can see this happening within a large and diverse Labour Party – perhaps against a contentious bill involving Net Zero? Especially if opposition parties play their part.
LikeLike
And don’t forget the 40% or more who felt sufficiently disenfranchised as not to vote at all. Despite their huge majority in the House of Commons, there is a strong argument that Labour has no mandate for anything. Of course our system doesn’t work that way. Never has first past the post seemed so antithetical to functioning democracy.
LikeLike
Mark,
The argument given for FPTP is that it delivers strong governments. But maybe not so strong if we take into account Alan’s latest comment. I think the main problem this time around is that there is just too much discrepancy between seats won and percentage of votes awarded for there to be much hope of a coherent way forward. We live in interesting times.
LikeLike
Mad Marxist Ed thinks he has a mandate:
https://x.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1809262100813857177
He doesn’t:
LikeLiked by 5 people
Would that be ‘bold’, as in ‘insane’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or bold as in sheer bloody-minded, or bold as in bloody stupid? I’m still not sure but I’m pretty convinced that the NZ democratic deficit is as big as the space between Miliband’s ears.
LikeLike
“Defeated Tory MPs debate where it all went wrong – and how to save their Party”
Four now-ex-MPs give their opinions about the Conservatives’ future. Two seem to be for the right and two for the left. Bob Seely mentions the burden of Net Zero.
LikeLike
Regarding the mandate, 34% * 60% means that about 20% of the voters put a cross next to Labour. No mandate at all. However, when was the last time a party received the support of >50% of voters? We all know the rules of the game.
LikeLike
1951, I suspect.
LikeLike
This is a summary of the work experience of the Labour cabinet. Not one experienced scientist or engineer among them – though I think Miliband got Maths, Further Maths and Physics A Levels. If they are going to fail and fail quickly, it looks like sheer incompetence might be their undoing.
LikeLike
Oh, wait, my mistake, Starmer has redeemed himself:
https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1809292602124173456
Vallance . . . . Vallance!! Prepare for climate lockdowns based on dodgy models. Seriously, this bodes extremely ill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ross Clark has an article in the Speccie headed Ed Miliband will be a liability as energy secretary.
An extract:
My comment has the second most upticks:
This however has the most:
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m sure that Miliband will be a great success as ‘Energy Secretary’ – just as long as his lie-ability exceeds his liability.
LikeLike
Jaime:
On that narrow but very important point, and by no means exhaustively, it’s mortifying that we’ve lost from Parliament Andrew Bridgen, Steve Baker and Miriam Cates. The latter’s farewell tweet is notable for many responses from fervently grateful women (and some men) for her courage on the right side of science in the face of the mutant ideology of transgenderism:
I’m sure Cates was also a Net Zero sceptic but can’t immediately find a proof text for that. The following tweet speaks both of the desire to ‘unite the right’ and how the pitch has been (further) queered.
I’d be very surprised if the same didn’t apply to the parachutist candidate’s views on Net Zero. And drawing the same kind of extrapolation more broadly this is not good news for us
and the bleak follow-up
‘Top Cat’, as I’ve mentioned here before, was a stalwart climate realist and perhaps the earliest MP to support gender critical women like Venice Allan, including providing rooms in the House of Commons when no other venue would host those pioneering meetings.
There’s no hiding from these losses.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m quite furious about the way Andrew Bridgen has been treated, first by the establishment, then by voters. He received an absolutely paltry number of votes in NW Leicestershire. A Labour MP was elected, Tories (who threw him out of the party for daring to raise the issue of excess deaths possibly linked to Covid vaccines) came a close second. For all he has done for his constituents and for the people of this country, courageously putting his career on the line and enduring all manner of snide assaults from a disgruntled establishment who set out to make his life as difficult as possible, he then gets kicked in the teeth by his own constituents. They deserve all they get over the next 5 years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ben Pile has another good article – Ed Miliband’s Commitment to Wind Power Could Be Labour’s Undoing in today’s Daily Sceptic in which he demolishes Miliband’s absurd plans.
It’s quite short and, although it contains little that’s new to anyone here, he makes the case well – and with humour. An example:
After telling us that:
Ben notes:
Ben concludes:
I think Miliband’s plans will collapse long before 2030.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh boy;
“Carney: Household bills will fall with new tech”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jqgvpxk9ko
Worth a read to see what a mess the new government is in already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Mark, for the link. At first sight it appears that most of the money in the National Wealth Fund will be wasted apart for that spent on ports and supply chains. What a tragedy! Regards, John C.
LikeLike
A good article – Will we be the North Korea of Europe? – by David Craig in TCW this morning. Again, like Ben Pile yesterday, there’s nothing we don’t already know but he puts it well and it’s good to see the message getting out there.
Two extracts:
Is Reeves in particular, desperate for economic growth, really going to allow this to happen? Somehow I doubt it.
LikeLike
The Spectator has an article in this week’s magazine entitled ‘Starmer must move fast without losing his head’.
Two extracts:
To blow my own trumpet (yes I know) I have a comment that’s proving quite popular:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
“Nothing – apart perhaps from immigration – will guarantee widespread unpopularity more than pressing ahead with the disastrous and totally pointless Net Zero policy.”
Starmer just declared war on Russia and made us a sitting target for Putin’s nukes. I think he just found something that exceeds even Net Zero and immigration in the potential unpopularity stakes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good three-legged stool there, Robin and Jaime!
LikeLike
This morning NZW has published a highly critical report by David Turver called The Scandalous Climate Change Committee.
From Andrew Montford’s covering note:
Worth reading – it’s short and to the point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The appointments of Chris Stark and Patrick Vallance cannot be seen as anything other than a two fingers up by Labour to those opposed to bad science and conflicts of interest dominating government policy. A message which says clearly:
‘We are going to continue the status quo of corruption, deception, politically and financially motivated poor science and self-serving managerial practice which the Tories have had in place for 14 years. In fact, we’re going to appoint some of the same people they had in place to do just that.’
LikeLike
The depressing thing Jaime is that Labour, just like their Tory predecessors, Labour believe they’re doing the right thing. And the problem for the likes of us is that, because Net Zero has never been at the top of the political agenda, we haven’t had a serious opportunity to challenge either of them about it. For example, because NZW are routinely dismissed as ‘deniers’, I don’t suppose many – if any – people of influence are likely to read Turver’s excellent report.
LikeLike
Seriously Robin, do you honestly think that Stark and other members of the CCC believed they were ‘doing the right thing’ by doing this:
Do you honestly believe that Labour think that by re-employing Stark to oversee Grid Net Zero by 2030 they are ‘doing the right thing’? Same with conflict of interest Vallance whose models supposedly validating lockdowns failed miserably.
I have very serious misgivings about that generous interpretation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, yes and yes. I fear many of us don’t understand what we’re up against: many of these people are fanatics who think for example that the end justifies the means.
LikeLike
Mark – thanks for the “Carney: Household bills will fall with new tech” link.
Partial quote from Carney & the BBC article –
“Under its £7.3bn National Wealth Fund, the new Labour government is to put money towards higher-risk projects, such as gigafatories for batteries, hydrogen fuel, carbon capture, and green steel. It aims to attract £3 of private sector funding for every £1 of taxpayers’ money.
The private investment will build momentum if the projects are successful, Mr Carney told the BBC’s Today programme on Wednesday. However, the Climate Change Committee has said that for the UK to get to net zero emissions by 2050 – that is, to completely off-set all carbon emissions – it needs to be investing £50bn per year by 2030.”
As usual I like to read the comments below from “highest rated”
“PolicyAndDogma11:13 10 Jul – Meanwhile China burns 100 million tons of coal each week
(what Great Britain used to burn in a year in the 1960s) every week after week to make cheap electric cars, solar panels etc so that righteous middle class idiots can pretend that they are saving the planet.
The environmental cost of the current system is mind boggling pollution in offshore locations -up votes 91 downvotes 25.
Gives me some hope that even the BBC web audience/commenters can see through the spin.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
I think the worm is turning on net zero, but sadly too slowly to have affected the recent general election result, and (as Richard pointed out earlier) too many people (an astonishing number of people, considering the profound importance of the issue) have no awareness of the significance of the net zero policy implications. They will learn all too soon. The big question is whether or not too much money will have been wasted and too much damage caused to the UK by an insane net zero policy before Labour either U-turns or is unceremoniously dumped by an angry electorate at the next general election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ross Clark had a good article in yesterday’s Speccie blog: The trouble with Ed Miliband’s North Sea oil crackdown.
It was followed by a catalogue of excellent Miliband and Labour criticism. (No boasting this time: my comments made limited progress.) The most liked was from ‘Lamia’:
I also like this from ‘Jampuff’:
Well said.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also yesterday James Woudhuysen (visiting professor at London South Bank University) had this article in Spiked:
Miliband’s Net Zero militancy is a disaster in the making
His ban on North Sea oil and gas drilling has exposed his contempt for British industry and workers.
An extract:
Woodhuysen’s conclusion:
True. Yet Miliband has so far hardly got started.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Another article about Miliband! This time by Ben Pile in The Daily Sceptic this morning – Miliband the Mad Monk
From Ben’s opening paragraph:
His conclusion:
Well worth reading in full.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ed is “dangerously mad” according to Ben but as Woudhuysen points out, “Miliband’s promise to create hundreds of thousands of jobs unmasks him either as dishonest or unable to do his multiplication tables.” He’s got A level maths and further maths, so he can probably do simple arithmetic. Therefore he’s lying to us, and he knows he’s lying to us. He knows that his North Sea ban will put hundreds of thousands out of work and his ‘Green jobs’ won’t replace those losses, not by a long chalk. Yet he’s going full steam ahead. Why? The most popular explanation is that he is simply a deluded JSO type climate activist who unfortunately managed to become our energy secretary. That being the case, Rachel Reeves will ensure that he is sacked as soon as possible because he threatens her growth targets.
LikeLike
Jaime,
Regarding your last sentence, let’s hope so. The worrying thing is that it’s blindingly obvious that Miliband’s policies undermine Reeves’ growth programme, yet neither she nor Starmer seem to understand that.
Starmer had a self-indulgent piece in the Guardian today, along the lines that Tory chaos has now been replaced by Labour competence. The reality seems to be that far from the adults being back in charge, the country is now run by toddlers.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes Mark, I can believe that one person in high office is clinically insane and suffering from grand delusions, but I have difficulty accepting that two further persons in even higher office are suffering from exactly the same mental malaise, especially when they have made it clear publicly that their priorities are at odds with that supposed mental affliction. Talking of Grangemouth recently, Starmer stated that his priority is jobs. Ed’s ban on North Sea exploration will almost certainly mean that Grangemouth refinery operations are shut down permanently. Thousands of irreplaceable jobs down the pan.
LikeLike
This:
https://x.com/chriscurtis94/status/1811812683718488161
Curtis is the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North. His bio states:
Can’t spell, can’t add up, views not his own but imported wholesale from Labour high command.
Christ, what a mess. We are in serious trouble.
LikeLike
The Times (a Labour and Net Zero supporter) has an interesting leader this morning:
Energy Illusions
The government should acknowledge that there is no painless route to net zero
(I cannot provide a link or much in the way of extracts as I’m getting this from the paper edition.)
It proceeds on the basis that human activities are causing climate change and that ‘cutting emissions is vital to prevent long-term social and ecological devastation’ – i.e. the much repeated establishment view. However from thereon it criticises the government, especially for not acknowledging the costs and trade-offs required to achieve net zero emissions.
It goes on to look at the wider perspective: ‘In truth, oil and gas cannot be dispensed with on any realistic time scale. Fossil fuels meet about 80 per cent of the global primary energy demand… Most fertiliser production, for example, requires the use of natural gas‘. And re the UK it says ‘There is no merit in shutting down oil production while increasing imports, generating more emissions and aggravating business uncertainty’. It concludes:
Hmm … encouraging (especially that last sentence): The Times still has some influence. Its editorial team would seem to be getting at least a part of the message. Perhaps they could be persuaded to read Ben Pile’s excellent essay to get the rest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
This goes to the heart of the problem. There is no ‘balancing act’ which can be achieved with Net Zero. You can’t adopt a policy of ‘cutting emissions is vital to prevent long-term social and ecological devastation’ without causing immense harm in the process, on any reasonable timescale deemed necessary to prevent a ‘climate crisis’ which will allegedly cause ‘long-term social and ecological devastation’. It’s impossible: a circle which cannot be squared. Net Zero, either on steroids or on a ‘go slow’ is assured economic, social and environmental destruction. All very well for Tugendhat to say:
Why wasn’t it common sense when the Cons were in power? And it’s not just jobs and livelihoods. Net Zero will decimate our natural environment too. But . . . . . economic and environmental catastrophe is a certainty if we don’t cut emissions! And on and on it goes, round and round in circles . . . . . until we look very hard at the necessity argument and re-examine it rationally and scientifically.
LikeLike
Another excellent comment (by ‘swgd’) from that Ross Clark article:
LikeLike
It’s a quote I know well – I deployed it in Ares Upwards to justify my (intelligent) protagonist’s laziness. However, I don’t think Miliband can be classed as stupid. The question of how intelligent people can be sucked into the vortex of impossible Net Zero ideas is one we have debated in these pages, without firm conclusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime:
The problem we sceptics understandably find it hard to understand is that, as Professor Woudhuysen said of Miliband: ‘Just like those raving Just Stop Oil activists, he seems to think that the Net Zero ends will always justify the means.’ Moreover, it may seem absurd to us, but the established elite – politicians, academia, the CEOs of all those NGOs and of many other institutions and corporations, the MSM (e.g. The Times), the legal profession etc. – have no doubt there is a ‘balancing act’ that can be struck enabling us to achieve net zero. There may perhaps be some signs that this view is changing. But, if it is, there’s a long way still to go.
LikeLike
Oh dear, this video; I really do think Milibanned has only a couple of loose screws holding his hinges:
Ominous.
https://x.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1812067938477777048
I notice he didn’t mention the ban on North Sea oil and gas exploration though. That might be significant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an interesting comment and it echoes my way of thinking about this whole bloody mess, which combines ignorant, stupid, deluded and malign:
https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1812069503146061919
Unfair on Orangutans though!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice that he also fails to brag about his role in trying to kill off the proposed Cumbrian coal mine and the 1,500 or so jobs that it might have generated, in a constituency that has only just returned to Labour (possibly not for long, at this rate).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uh-oh. No Looney Tunes video, but Reeves is ‘just getting started’ too:
https://x.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1812057463144755230
Labour ministers are on a mission, from Starmer’s “bigger reset” to Millibanned’s Mission Control Net Zero on speed, to Reeves’ magical National Wealth Fund created by shrinking tax revenues and shrinking economic growth. That means zealots. That means trouble ahead.
LikeLike
Announcing a target is not an achievement, and it is moronic to suggest otherwise.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jit: I particularly liked your comment on that leadership quote. I doubt if we’ll ever conclude just how it is that intelligent people can be sucked into the vortex of impossible Net Zero ideas. I suspect the answer may be something to do with the fact that many of them are busy people who, convinced of the need to cut emissions, haven’t felt the need to take the time that’s required to examine the matter deeply. I think (hope) such people may begin to change their position when they see that some of those whom they regard as their peers, such as The Times‘ editorial team, are indicating a different view.
Incidentally I think that, although Boris Johnson may legitimately be classed as clever and lazy, his recent record doesn’t indicate that he’s qualified for the highest leadership posts.
LikeLike
We should remember what is still stated on the UK Government’s Behaviour Change website:
Behaviour change is one of the primary functions of government communications
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/marketing/behaviour-change/
So every time that Milliband makes an announcement, it is designed to manipulate how we should behave, basically in order to make his purpose more achievable. Does that make him evil? Well, it depends how much collateral harm he fully expects to be inflicted upon his unsuspecting subjects. Those who used the techniques of misdirection to persuade Jews to step into the showers were certainly acting with gross malice. Others who use misdirection to fool people into purchasing a product that isn’t the bargain they think it is are occupying the other end of the spectrum. Those who, for the purposes of pursuing a social dream, misdirect the masses into thinking Net Zero will reduce their bills and save the planet, occupy the middle ground in my opinion. The likes of Milliband know that we are not ‘taking a shower’ and it is unethical to say the least that he is keeping that news from the great unwashed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well John, if Miliband’s announcements are designed to manipulate how we should behave, they would seem to be have been rather poorly designed. As for the masses, I suggest they’ll wait until they see it happening before they get too excited.
LikeLike
Sorry I’m late! I wish to register a complaint. Wasn’t Blues in the title meant to refer to the Tories, Mr Jit? Steve Baker has made two public interventions that I learned things from and were pretty amusing. And Rees-Mogg said a lot of sensible things I thought to the Speccie in the last 24 hours, including about the right attitude to Farage and Net Zero. But never mind.
Didn’t they say they wouldn’t come out for Labour?
LikeLike
Robin,
I don’t disagree with your appraisal of Milliband’s skills, but my view is still that Milliband and his like are of the same mind as Professor Mike Hulme, when he says:
https://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hulme-Carbon-Yearbook.pdf
I think Milliband and many others have a personal project, and Net Zero is a means of allowing it to take shape. In the Hulmean sense, this is not really about fixing the climate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John:
I was going to say, before being rudely interrupted by a wifi issue, that it’s about power and purpose. Miliband, and many other pols, need a purpose, in line with the Hulmean vision.
But there’s also massive power in power. The second power refers to energy, its harnessing and consumption. Climate Crisis and Net Zero theories lead to incredible power to the executive, as Lindzen pointed out years ago.
What politician isn’t going to want both of those: power and purpose, wrapped up as if all their Christmases have come at once?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry if people have seen these already. There are of course many more of the same.
Baker contra George Osborne and Ed Balls. Funny if you like Blue-on-Blue action.
Tory compromises on Net Zero get a mention here
I agree with Rees-Mogg here on pretty much everything
LikeLike
Richard,
What politician isn’t going to want both of those: power and purpose, wrapped up as if all their Christmases have come at once?
Well, I suppose that’s what it all boils down to eventually, but I guess they want that power in order to impose their own values and vision as to how society should work. I don’t think it is any coincidence that so many questions of justice and equity have been lumped in with climate change. It is as if tackling climate change is a silver bullet. Or, as I put it on this website some time ago:
Emotion, Decisions – And Climate Change – Climate Scepticism (cliscep.com)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, very good John. That covers a lot of the craziness.
LikeLike
Milibanned (and politicians in general): power AND purpose? This implies an opportunistic use of a largely fictitious ‘crisis’. A crisis/emergency in fact which the establishment has itself fabricated and which politicians have demonstrably bigged up for years.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I’m reporting this site to the European Commission and informing Sander the Vander straight away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime,
Yes, as the behavioural scientists have openly admitted, it is all about manipulating risk perception: Big up the climate change risk and small down the transitional risks.
As for Sander the Vander, I think it would be quite fun for him to turn his attention toward us. I feel so ready for that 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well everyone, all very interesting but I stick with my conviction that Miliband really thinks he can achieve the 2030 and Net Zero targets. It’s mad of course – but he’s quite simply deluded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, on Net Zero and motives
My take. It’s not innocent because of the massive power-over-people factor. You’re right about that. But note 3. IMHO
LikeLike
But, if you want a fancy theory (I don’t), I’d like to suggest that Robert Conquest’s Third Law of Politics might apply to the Labour Government:
‘The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.’
But I struggle to make it fit. Unless of course Farage is even cleverer than I thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
By all means stick with that conviction – it’s a good one to have. I think the delusion goes with the territory of someone thinking they are the truth and the way. I also wonder whether the apparent madness of someone thinking that what we do in the UK will make a blind difference globally betrays the fact that, at least at the subconscious level, the real purpose is not to fix the climate but to secure a place in socialist heaven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin: I hadn’t heard of Robert Conquest’s Third Law. Very good.
Jaime earlier quoted from Peter North on X and he’s produced a rasping long tweet on Miliband now. I’m not sure about the EV battery balancing bit but otherwise I think it’s excellent.
Sorry the paragraphs are lost in the copy/paste there. (Click on link to see the original.)
“An authoritarian’s wet dream” is right. Even if one starts with deluded idealists it’s hard not see that person-type taking over the operation.
[Addition of 16 Jul 24: See MikeH’s explanation for why the “EV battery balancing” ideal based on Vehicle to Grid (V2G) is highly dubious.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes Richard, once again that last tweet you posted confirms my opinion that what we have is an unholy and rather complex mix of madness, delusion, zealotry, vanity manifesting in the extreme as malign narcissistic sociopathy, the will to power plus simple opportunistic profit-making and greed. In such circumstances, it is probably not worth our while squabbling over motivations, but it should at least be pointed out that the whole spectrum of motivations is probably present in the drive to impose Net Zero upon us and that we cannot easily dismiss malign intent in favour of simple ‘for the greater good’ delusion.
LikeLike
John, I’ve little doubt that Miliband genuinely believes that the UK can make a difference globally. It may seem astonishing to us but a lot of people really think that we can, and should, lead by example. See my “Climate Leadership” essay: https://cliscep.com/2023/03/23/leadership/. I see the first comment (excellent) was yours.
LikeLike
Jaime: you say: ‘we cannot easily dismiss malign intent in favour of simple ‘for the greater good’ delusion‘.
I disagree.
LikeLike
Richard, whatever their motivations, your quote from Peter North on X well illustrates what you queried the other day i.e. how the Left has lost its way politically – I would say that they have completely lost the plot. More specifically, the elite of the Labour Party has abandoned the party’s original raison d’être, namely support for the ordinary man and woman. This problem is highlighted in prof. Matt Goodwin’s recent book, “Values, Voice and Virtue”. And I have not even mentioned the democratic deficit that Net Zero ‘enjoys’. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, of course, I am aware that you can easily dismiss malign intent but I’m not sure that this applies more generally.
LikeLike
Jaime, you say: ‘it is probably not worth our while squabbling over motivation‘
I agree.
LikeLike
Overriding massive local opposition Miliband has just approved a vast 2,500-acre Sunnica solar farm to be built across the Cambridgeshire /Suffolk border. It’s interesting (and I think Mark in particular will like this) that Charlotte Cane the newly elected LibDem MP for Ely and East Cambridgeshire said:
Solar farms may be vital and key to net zero but it’s funny how that’s somehow no longer true when it affects her own area. And surely she doesn’t approve of horse racing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I may have mentioned, that is the problem with nimbys. They cannot see the big picture, and that if they banded together against the thing they despise, they could defeat it anywhere. If they act in a piecemeal fashion, MIliband will eat them all.
I’ll make a note of this on the Solar Giants thread for posterity. I expect there will be much more of this. (Cancel that. Mark has already done so.)
LikeLike
Further to my comments at 8.44pm about the “flipping” of the Left …
Here is a clip of Goodwin discussing (i) [0 to 6 mins] the need for a new politics which speaks for the majority rather than for the 15% or 20% ‘woke’ view that currently dominates the media despite the failures of the elite class, (ii) [6 to 9 mins] the history of ‘woke’ or ‘radical liberal progressivism’ and its belief in the virtue of minorities and its suspicion of the majority, (iii) [9 mins to end] the anticipated further increase in ‘wokeness’ in reaction to the recent success in the West of popular political movements. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
This is not going to cut it.
https://x.com/leanahosea/status/1812076172445917478
You cannot claim that ‘renewables are essential to fight climate change’ but not in my back yard please. Milibanned’s ‘nationally significant infrastructure’ eco-fascist directive is just going to steam-roller all opposition. Resistance has to be fiercely local and nationally coordinated and it must divest itself of the insane ‘necessity’ argument or at the very least switch to nuclear only in place of economy and environment destroying ruinables.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, we were warned about eco-fascism some time ago; here is Deutsche Bank’s Eric Heymann sounding the alarm in about January 2021:-
https://web.archive.org/web/20230327160926/https://www.netzerowatch.com/deutsche-bank-eu-green-deal-can-only-succeed-with-a-certain-degree-of-eco-dictatorship/?ref=quillette
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, more on eco-fascism:-
About 15 years ago prof. Mike Hulme in his book ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change” wrote at page 341, ” … perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” Thus, at the time, he seemed unaware of the political demons he might be summoning up with such language.
Fast forward to 2023 and prof, Hulme publishes another book, titled ‘Climate Change Isn’t Everything – liberating climate politics from alarmism’. Now “everything” is precisely the modus operandi of totalitarianism; and this latest book attempts to walk us back from the brink given that, by my count, the word “totalitarian” is mentioned on 2 pages, while the word “totalizing” is mentioned on 9 pages, especially at page 116 where Hulme writes, “‘The end justifies the means’, the motto of of all totalitarian projects … Climatism is totalizing not just in the sense of seeking to envelop all matters of public concern within a single master-narrative … Climatism also, at its most extreme, seeks to police the boundaries of what can and cannot be said about climate change, and by whom.”
We have thus been warned (again)! But the uni-party has not been listening. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime/Robin, I am working on an argument (based on those above) that will, I hope!, unite or at least reconcile your two apparently mutually exclusive views of Net Zero policies and governments (i.e. malice versus cock-up). However, I am about to be away for a couple of weeks and so will continue with my Janus impersonation in early August. Regards, John C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus
LikeLiked by 2 people
As Tom Tugendhat makes no secret of his intention to stand, the odds of most of the candidates, including him, are sliding. [Paddy Power as before.]
Kemi Badenoch 6/4 tightening from 2/1
Robert Jenrick 4/1 (was 15/2)
Tom Tugendhat 9/2 (was 4/1)
James Cleverley – new in at 11/2
Priti Patel 15/2 from 13/2
Suella Braverman 12/1 from 17/2
According to the bookies then, it is now more likely than not that Kemi Badenoch will be the next leader. This will please climate sceptics, and sceptics of matters woke. But is it too soon to field the best weapon? Will the next opposition leader survive long enough to reach the next election?
LikeLiked by 3 people
The assignation of statistical odds to deck chairs shuffled aboard the Titanic. My money is on the iceberg, though I quite fancy Braverman, which probably explains why she is way behind the frontrunners.
LikeLike
Jit: Thanks for the update. My earlier reservation about whether Paddy P had priced in the relative increase of ‘stiflers’ (of any effective anti-Net Zero action) among MPs I now lay aside. Kemi must have a really good chance.
Well exactly. On the other hand it’s probably her only chance.
Jaime:
Unproven that the big boat will sink (ie get less seats than Reform) next time or that the very small boat will even exist. Trump liking Farage and having much increased likelihood of being the next US Pres means … who knows?
LikeLike
“Robert Jenrick emerges as Tory leadership frontrunner in new poll”
Telegraph /paywall
LikeLike
Odds according to the Indy on MSN:
Kemi Badenoch 11/8 up from 6/4
****Robert Jenrick 7/2 (from 4/1)
****Tom Tugendhat still at 9/2
****James Cleverley – still at 11/2
Priti Patel back to 13/2 from 15/2
Suella Braverman 22/1 from 12/1
Mel Stride: new in the pop charts at 40/1
**** has launched.
Tugendhat faced ridicule today for promotional materials where the first letters of the lines spelled T-U-R-D. It was rapidly changed to T-U-R-W (changing Defeat to Winning, I think).
LikeLike
Mel Stride has the numbers to be nominated and is in the race. Despite the fact that he was apparently often wheeled out to do media by Rishi Sunak, he is the least familiar of the pack to me.
LikeLike
Kemi Badenoch and Priti Patel have now launched their bids for the leadership. Suella Braverman apparently has the required number of supporters, but has withdrawn (if you can do that without having entered).
So, we have 6 candidates. Their climate credentials will presumably be aired in the next few weeks.
LikeLike
A leadership race that has all the excitement of a bowl of warmed up 2 day old soup. Watching Labour implode just a couple of weeks after they ‘hit the ground running’ does at least have some entertainment value.
LikeLike
Jaime, sceptics should be watching this with some apprehension. If we get a new Opposition that is signed up to the Net Zero stuff, it will confirm our decline as a nation for the next decade. And even if policy changes in 2034, it will take a long time to restore sanity. So much will have been destroyed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That being the case Jit, then, as suspected, there is no opposition, certainly as far as Net Zero is concerned, which policy will fundamentally determine the direction in which this nation goes in the coming decades.
LikeLike
Guido Fawkes has an amusing article:
LABOUR’S NORTH SEA TAX POLICY WRITTEN BY CLIMATE ACTIVISTS
https://order-order.com/2024/07/31/labours-north-sea-tax-policy-written-by-climate-activists/.
He concludes:
LikeLiked by 1 person
And then there were two… but I forgot to write about the intervening culls.
However, there is a glimmer of hope in today’s Telegraph, which I thought I should share here.
Telegraph link, magic curtain.
Kemi Badenoch seems to be on course for the win, and I’m not sure what her stance on this is. I rather hope it’s the same.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because reasons, I found myself stuck watching not just PMQs, but the budget too, and the Leader of the Opposition’s budget response, plus an hour of discussion re same.
In PMQs, there was buddy-movie-level bonhomie between Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak on his last shift as Conservative leader.
But Sunak’s budget response was of altogether different character. He was smoking; appeared genuinely furious at what the Chancellor had done. I don’t know where this Rishi was hiding for the past few years, but it was a pugnacious performance today.
LikeLike
Sunak knew what Labour were going to do. He predicted it on July 1st and he’s boasting about his correct prediction on X. So why is he furious about what he saw as an inevitable consequence of a majority Labour government, which he installed effectively by calling an early election, running a dripping wet election campaign and by pointedly refusing to change direction on extremely unpopular ‘Conservative’ policies? Excuse me if I’m not convinced by his display of righteous indignation now.
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1851669566339867087
LikeLike
‘Robert Jenrick has promised to tear up the Climate Change Act if he becomes Tory leader and eventually prime minister.’
Barely even a glimmer of hope: he cannot do anything for over four years – and that assumes his party has won an election. I much prefer Badenoch’s approach (quoted elsewhere):
‘That she was a “net-zero sceptic” but not “a climate change sceptic”. That she did not want to do something “because it looks good” and “before we figured out how to do it”. And that she added: “Is net-zero a solution or is it a slogan? .. I am not sure we have properly thought that through.”’
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’ve learnt nothing:
“Copying Donald Trump’s ‘anti-green agenda’ would be disastrous for the Tories, Kemi Badenoch is warned by party grandees who say aping his ‘drill, drill, drill’ mantra will ‘alienate’ voters”
Mail link.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for that link Jit. Trump (about to be in power, assassins allowing):
Top marks for that last point. Badenoch (not likely to be in power for a while, if ever):
Three Tory ‘grandees’ have definitely learned nothing. But they’re also clearly running scared.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is interesting. The following Parliamentary petition is running today:
Call a General Election
I would like there to be another General Election.
I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.
It started last Wednesday but has really got going today now getting over 2,000 signatures per minute. The total has just passed one million.
That’s pretty amazing. And, as I understand these Parliamentary petitions run for six months, this one could be very significant. Of course the Government won’t do anything in response to it. But they’re bound to notice what is yet another humiliation for Starmer and his not so merry men.
LikeLike
Robin; aiui, any petition which gets over 100,000 signatures has to be considered for a debate in parliament. I’m sure the govt will brush it aside, as you say, but it will be on the record and will be great ammunition for the opposition parties, especially if it ends up with a few million signatures.
LikeLike
More than 1,300,000 votes on that petition now. Inevitably the government will say it’s all down to Russian bots or something, and will indeed ignore it, but they have no choice other than to debate it.
I concede that some people will have voted multiple times, bots will be active, and so on, but the rate at which people are voting suggests real motivation and anger on the part of the public, a public that was lied to before the election and betrayed after it. If it reaches 10 million votes (unlikely, I accept, but not impossible), then the embarrassment for the government will be quite extraordinary, as it would suggest that more people want a fresh election that voted for the government in the last one.
LikeLike
MikeH: it does look set to be quite big – 1.3m signatures now and increasing by about 30k every 10 minutes. It’s going to be hard to ignore.
I’m not sure but I think the ‘debates’ are not held in the HoC but in Westminster Hall. More of a mock debate.
LikeLike
Looking at the petition map is very instructive. Lincolnshire constituencies feature prominently. South Holland and the Deepings – where I used to live – is second only to Clacton in the percentage of people who’ve signed so far. This is probably why:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: I think you’ll find it’s quite hard to vote multiple times. You have to provide your name, address and email address and your vote doesn’t count until you’ve clicked on an email link – once you’ve done that you’re not able to vote again. As for bots, look at this map that’s linked to the signature site: https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=700143
If bots were active I think the voting pattern would be more uniform. As it is it does seem to reflect what might be expected: for example a low vote in London and Oxford and a high vote in Richmond and Northallerton (Sunak’s constituency) and in Clacton (Farage’s constituency). As Jaime notes, it’s interactive making it quite interesting to investigate the detail.
BTW there are now 1.4m signatures and it seems set for 1.5m this evening. So your 10m (remember: it runs for six months) may be a possible. I agree that it’s unlikely.
LikeLike
1.5m. And running at about 2k per minute.
LikeLike
1.9m now.
LikeLike
The petition has made the news at the Mail. Not sure about elsewhere. Almost 2,000,000 as of this moment.
LikeLike
It’s just passed 2m. It’s flying now, having slowed overnight. Still only a maximum of 5% of constituents have signed. This has a long way to go and easily has the potential to reach 10 million, which would still only mean a maximum of 25% of constituents have signed
LikeLike
It’s running at about 1k per minute compared with 2k yesterday.
LikeLike
Correct Robin. Like electricity usage, I’m guessing there will be an evening peak. The government might be kicking itself for not installing a smart meter on Downing street petitions!
LikeLiked by 1 person
However if it slowed to say 250 per minute it would still reach Mark’s 10 million by Christmas.
LikeLike
Michael Caine has shared the petition on X. Looks ominous for the Starmer regime.
LikeLike
Uncomfortable perhaps – but hardly ominous. However many signatures it gets the Government will simply ignore it.
LikeLike
On ITV this morning Starmer said this about the petition:
Hmm … sounds to me as though he might be getting a bit rattled.
LikeLike
So, is he ignoring it or is he getting rattled, Robin? The more signatures accumulate, the more questions are going to be asked, and the more rattled Starmer is going to become. He can’t ignore the cries of anguish from an electorate betrayed (whether they voted Labour or not), he can only choose not to pay heed to that anger – and that is looking like an increasingly dangerous option.
LikeLike
Lincs constituencies are now up to 6% signed, so that’s an increase of 1% just since 11am this morning (a little over 6 hours). If we reckon on 2% over 24 hours (allowing for overnight slowdown), it will take another two days to reach 10%, 5 days to get to 20% and then another 2 and a half days to get to 25%. So, at the current pace, a quarter of all residents in two Lincolnshire constituencies will have registered their disgust at this government’s betrayal. That’s quite something. And of course, we can expect a similar growth pattern across the UK as a whole.
LikeLike
The story has made the BBC website:
“I’m not surprised some want an election re-run – PM”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2r4g98gjo
It’s been opened up for a have your say, and comments aren’t going well for Starmer. Some people do make the point that there won’t be another election on the back of this petition, because that isn’t how our democracy works, and I agree with that. It’s ironic that some of the people calling for an early election are people who objected to calls for a re-run of the Brexit referendum. The mirror image of that irony is the fact that Starmer was (for a while) among those calling for another Brexit referendum.
The BBC perfectly validly makes this point:
…In 2019, a petition calling for Brexit to be cancelled received 6.1 million signatures. Three years earlier a call for a second Brexit referendum garnered 4.2 million names….
The more successful of those two petitions achieved a little more than a third of the votes for Brexit. So although it represented a cry of anguish, it certainly wasn’t reflective of “Bregret.” If the current petition should be so successful as to receive more signatures than Labour received votes at the last general election, it still wouldn’t mean that there should be an election, but it would represent a massive embarrassment for Starmer and should cause him to pause and reconsider his more damaging and extremist policies (including the headlong rush to net zero and decarbonisation of the grid). If nothing else, it ought to engender some humility, and an end to Ed’s repeated (and inaccurate) pontifications to the effect that he has a mandate for his mad policies. As I said here:
https://cliscep.com/2024/07/06/when-is-a-mandate-not-a-mandate/
Labour currently has a constitutional mandate, but not a popular one. That would be blatantly obvious should this petition achieve ten million signatures (it’s now up to 2.35 million signatures).
LikeLike
That’s a big ‘if’ Mark (as you acknowledge) and I think that 10m is unlikely to happen. The voting intensity is slowing – 2k per minute yesterday, 1k this morning and only about 750 now. Still there are nearly six months to go. So you never know …
LikeLike
The difference with the reverse Brexit petition is that it wasn’t a case of ‘buyer’s remorse’, it was almost certainly a case of those people who voted Remain once again trying to cancel Brexit because they just could not accept losing what was a straightforward yes or no vote, put to the population as a whole, minus the complications of ‘first past the post’. The ‘call a general election’ is qualitatively different. It is ‘buyer’s remorse’ in that almost certainly there are many Labour voters who feel they have been outrageously betrayed by Labour. Additionally, it’s not a case of non Labour voters not accepting a democratic decision, although it’s certainly the case that it’s very difficult to reconcile democracy with Labour’s ‘loveless majority’. It is more a case of all voters realising the catastrophic, existential threat to Britain that the recently elected government poses. The petition signatures may be slowing now, after the initial excitement, but as Labour doubles down on its destructive policy agenda, I predict that it will pick up again. With six months to go, I don’t see that 10 million signatures is an unlikely prospect.
LikeLike
The voting intensity has slowed right down this morning to only about 200 per minute. Notwithstanding that the overall total has just reached a remarkable 2.6m total. So 3.0m today is a possibility. EDIT: no it’s not! R
It would take a voting intensity averaging about 2.5 per minute to get to 10 million by 20 May 2025.
LikeLike
Reeves has crashed the economy. Starmer is pushing us into a nuclear conflict with Russia. Miliband is suffocating us all with his mad Net Zero fetish. Cooper is weaponising the police in order to stifle free speech and turn us into a nation of snitches. Lammy and Starmer are burning bridges with the Trump administration whilst attempting to ensnare us in the EU, thwarting the expressed will of 17.4 million voters in 2016. If it doesn’t get to 10 million then I think there’s no hope for the British people; they’ll have accepted assisted national suicide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This lunatic is insufferable. We simply must find a way to out him out of our misery.
https://x.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1861440392199094551
Where’s Nurse Ratched when you need her?
LikeLiked by 1 person
*put* him out of our misery.
So excellent that WordPress allows one to correct typos by writing a whole new comment instead of having to go through the tedious procedure of . . . . . correcting typos on the original comment. Great feature.
LikeLike
It’s slowing right down Jaime – now only about 150 per minute. However it’s just passed 2.7m.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a shame Robin. Still, maybe the British people have more important concerns at the moment: like wondering whether they’re going to be vaporised by Russian nukes seeing as the MoD is now equating Putin’s invasion of Ukraine with Russia’s supposed intention to then expand further into Europe and threaten European countries, including the UK. Incredibly dangerous rhetoric. Trump Derangement Syndrome has gone nuclear.
https://x.com/DefenceHQ/status/1861452253820850672
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: it’s crept past 2.8m (currently 40 per minute). And it’s just been announced that there’s to be a parliamentary debate about it (presumably in Westminster Hall) on 6 January. The total is likely to have exceeded 3m by then.
LikeLike
Here’s another petition for anyone interested:
“Hold a referendum on achieving net zero goals”
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701342
Personally I don’t believe a referendum is the answer, as it’s not an effective way to run things in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. Having said that, if enough people sign it, it has the potential to scare the government. Unless it’s picked up and heavily publicised, I can’t see it happening. It’s only just been posted, admittedly, but with 318 votes, and no significant uptick, it might not even hit 10,000.
LikeLike
Mark, I draw your attention to what happened almost exactly 3 years ago!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Jit, I remember that excellent post now. I should have posted the comment there. Feel free to move it, if you prefer.
LikeLike
I just had a quick look at this. It’s barely managing 3 per minute. Maybe it won’t get to 3.0m by 6 Jan after all.
LikeLike
As Parliament is due to debate the petition next Monday (6th January) I thought I’d see how it was getting on. And rather to my surprise I see it’s reached 3,012,947 signatures.
LikeLike
Today’s the day when the petition (now 3,019,000 signatures) is to be debated in Parliament. Don’t get excited – nothing of significance is likely to happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did they cancel the debate on getting rid of the government where three million far right protestors backed calling a general election, because today was also the day that Starmer had to make another emergency speech about the far right calling for a national enquiry? Or did I miss it?
LikeLike
Jaime, you can watch it here. I’m afraid I lasted about 5 minutes.
LikeLike
“Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation“
Deserving of a post of its own, but noted here for now.
There’s still the chance that the remnants of the Uniparty will say no to this before it gets printed in a manifesto.
LikeLike
Jit,
The Overton window has definitely moved on this one. No longer are the people of the UK to be denied a choice. It looks as though opponents of net zero might have the choice at the next election of voting Reform, Tory or SDP.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Am I being pernickety here? You can replace Miliband’s insane, unreliable, costly Clean Power Plan or Net Zero with a “strategy for cheap and reliable energy” but you cannot replace the Climate Change Act 2008. You repeal it. End of story. You admit that ‘saving the planet’ from a virtual reality climate change Thermageddon glimpsed only in the eye of overheated, overrated and overfed (on a diet of junk data) climate models is no longer government policy. Protecting the actual British environment might be, but that’s another thing entirely.
LikeLike