[Final update. All 6 national parties have now launched. I did not find time to do SNP/ Plaid Cymru.]
This week sees the release of party manifestos. I thought I’d summarise their offerings on climate here, with a view to assessing whether any of them are worth voting for. Climate policy is not in any way equivalent in magnitude to most of the other policies on offer – more GP appointments, more nurseries, more cops, etc. Climate policy in a very real sense is existential: it determines whether you have the sort of country that can afford to do any of the things it wants to do.
Jump to: Conservatives. Green Party. SDP. Labour. Reform.
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
Today, the day of the moon, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats to release their policy platform. What do they say about climate?
Climate change is an existential threat. Soaring temperatures leading to wildfires, floods, droughts and rising sea levels are affecting millions of people directly, and billions more through falling food production and rising prices. Urgent action is needed – in the UK and around the world – to achieve net zero and avert catastrophe.
i) no it isn’t;
ii) food production is growing, and those things would have happened anyway, or worse;
iii) at least they mention “the world” here. Going it alone is not an option.
What are they promising?
Liberal Democrats are committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2045 at the latest.
What they did here is, take 5 years off the existing “legally-binding” target. Why 5 years? No special reason. Just to look more green than the others.
They will, or would, if we let them:
- Make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with a ten-year emergency upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes, and ensure that all new homes are zero-carbon.
- Drive a rooftop solar revolution by expanding incentives for households to install solar panels, including a guaranteed fair price for electricity sold back into the grid.
- Invest in renewable power so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030.
- Appoint a Chief Secretary for Sustainability in the Treasury to ensure that the economy is sustainable, resource-efficient and zero-carbon, establish a new Net Zero Delivery Authority to coordinate action across government departments and work with devolved administrations, and hand more powers and resources to local councils for local net zero strategies.
- Establish national and local citizens’ assemblies to give people real involvement in the decisions needed to tackle climate change.
- Restore the UK’s role as a global leader on climate change, by returning international development spending to 0.7% of national income, with tackling climate change a key priority for development spending.
Well, what’s not to like there? Almost all of it, I think. All new houses zero carbon? What are they going to be made of? The only thing that they have going for them is that their 2030 renewable electricity target is 10% less absurd than Labour’s.
Back tomorrow with the doomed incumbents’ offerings.
CONSERVATIVES
Well, it’s Tuesday, and the Conservative manifesto duly arrived. Perusing the pdf version now, I wonder whether the graphic designer is a Labour voter, for the designs appear to have been exported at low res. Optimised for downloading? Perhaps. Certainly not for printing.
It’s an 80-page affair, and we have to wait until page 47 to get to…
Our plan for an affordable and pragmatic transition to net zero
[Everything is a “plan.” There’s a clear plan and bold action and a third thing I’ve forgotten. Oh yeh. A secure future.]
The title rather tells us that the destination remains the same. But it is now “pragmatic” and “affordable.” If it was pragmatic, it wouldn’t happen absent international agreement. It will not be affordable. So, what are they smoking?
The section begins by them saying how proud they are of their record. Thanks to Putin puttana, etc [I paraphrase lightly], energy prices spiked and the government stepped in to pay the bills. They’ve installed a lot of renewables since Labour was last in power (yes, it was a long time ago).
…UK is the first major economy to get halfway to net zero.
Gonna have to stop you there, ’cos you’re not counting all the stuff that we import.
But what are they promising? No bulleted list this time, so I’ll have to make my own:
- Annual oil and gas licensing rounds for the North Sea
- New gas power stations
- Treble offshore wind
- Build 2 CCS clusters
- Throw a bill at improving green manufacturing
- New SMRs to be approved within 100 days
- New nuke at Wylfa
We are strong supporters of domestic steel…
LOLOLOLOL, as they say.
- New carbon tariff on imports of energy-intensive products
This will:
…reduce the risk of industry being displaced to other countries which aren’t taking action on climate change…
Mate, that ship has sailed to China. It was empty.
So, how will they make the Net Zero medicine go down? Cutting and pasting their own bullets this time:
- Sticking to our pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach that eases the burdens on working people. Ensuring that families are given time to make changes that affect their lives and never forcing people to rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump.
- Guaranteeing a vote in the next Parliament on the next stage of our pathway, with adoption of any new target accompanied by proper consideration of the plans and policies required to meet the target, to maintain democratic consent for the big decisions that net zero will mean for our country.
- Ensuring that green levies on household bills are lower. The cost of renewables such as wind and solar has fallen dramatically. We will ensure the annual policy costs and levies on household energy bills are lower in each year of the next Parliament than they were in 2023.
- Reforming the Climate Change Committee, giving it an explicit mandate to consider cost to households and UK energy security in its future climate advice.
- Ruling out creating further green levies, and alongside our commitment not to introduce road pricing schemes, we will also rule out any frequent flyer levy.
They promise to offer households smart tariffs “which can save them £900 a year.” Also half-promised is burying the cables for future grid expansion rather than using pylons.
They want “democratic consent” for onshore wind, with bungs. For solar, the best agricultural land is protected, and the solar farms have to be spread out! There will be no fracking.
So, what’s the upsum? It’s steady as we were. I don’t see any U-turns or even brake-feathering here. The vote on the “next stage of our pathway” is likely to be as pointless as it sounds. There is some pie-in-the-sky: the CCS clusters with the technology that has yet to be proven. How much will new gas plants cost… knowing that they are supposed to sit idle most of the time?
A brief mention of transport: The absurd SAF is promoted and the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate is doubled down on. The 2035 deadline is maintained.
To damn with faint praise, at least the Conservatives are beating the Liberal Democrats. Back tomorrow with the Green Party. It’s Labour’s turn on Thursday. Monday is Reform.
GREEN PARTY
Well, on Odin’s Day, out came the Green Party manifesto. Sceptics probably predicted that they would come out with some humdingers which, if actually enacted, would trash what remains of once-Great Britain. They were probably right.
Most of the Green manifesto is labelled as “Greener, Fairer.” I can think of something that is green and fair – a graveyard. But let us not bury the Greens’ ideas out of hand. What do they want to do?
The UK’s current climate targets do not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. We would push the Government to transition to a zero-carbon society as soon as possible, and more than a decade ahead of 2050.
“More than a decade” sounds like before 2040. It is also pie-in-the-sky.
This ambition will deliver a zerocarbon [sic] electricity supply and security of supply over short and long periods of low generation, with sufficient electricity for all cars and vans to be electric, for all homes and buildings to stop using fossil fuels, and for most industry to transition to clean energy.
It is not written what this zerocarbon [sic] backup is going to consist of. Probably something to do with the gaseous emissions of one-horned equines.
Here come the bullets:
- Wind to provide around 70% of the UK’s electricity by 2030.
- Delivery of 80GW of offshore wind, 53 GW of onshore wind, and 100 GW of solar by 2035.
- Investment in energy storage capacity and more efficient electricity distribution.
- Communities to own their own energy sources, ensuring they can use any profit from selling excess energy to reduce their bills or benefit their communities.
They don’t just want to quadruple offshore wind. That would be child’s play. Instead, they’re going to more than quintuple it. And sextuple solar. Insert appropriate adjective. And perhaps point out that this 100 GW will produce nothing when the sun sets. Of course they have to go stupid on renewables, since they also want to get rid of nukes.
They also want you to sent money to “the Global South” whether you have any inclination to do so or not.
In recognition of the importance of supporting countries in the Global South to decarbonise their economies and build resilience to increasingly severe storms, floods and extreme heat, Green MPs would push for the UK to:
- Increase international aid to 1% of gross national income (GNI) by 2033.
- Increase climate finance for the Global South to 1.5% of GNI by 2033, with an additional contribution to a newly established Loss and Damage Fund.
There is no mention of leccy cars under transport, so I presume they are down with the current timetable for banning petrol vehicles. They do want to add a carbon tax on fuel. Newsflash guys: what do you think fuel duty is?
SDP
When I typed in “SDP manifesto” into my browser this evening, it autofilled with “1987.” Yes, it’s been a while. So what would our resurrected SDP friends like to do?
On energy, rather than quadruple wind, they want to quadruple nuclear. I’m down with that plan.
We accept the broad scientific consensus that fossil fuels are contributing to climate change and that we need to reduce our aggregate usage of them; however, we do not support unrealistic objectives such as “Net Zero” which lead to an unbalanced and costly energy regime in the UK without materially impacting global warming.
A policy that could almost have been written by a sceptic.
There’s not much on climate otherwise: promising to invest in research into non-fossil fuel energy systems. There is this under Industry, which I’m not on board with:
Specific focus will be given to electric vehicle and gigafactory capacity, modular nuclear reactors, hydrogen, solar and wind farm manufacturing, mineral fuel production, electrical machinery and plastics.
It’s obvious that if we are to steal a march, it would be on SMRs. We are not going to compete on battery manufacturing. Period.
Having only skimmed it, the SDP manifesto has a lot to like in other policy areas too. I won’t go into these here, since they are off topic, but I would recommend readers to peruse the rest of the offer. They will most likely not win a seat; but I might be inclined to vote for them, if I could.
Tomorrow: Labour, the government in waiting.
LABOUR
Cometh Thursday, cometh the Labour manifesto. In true climate-scare fashion, it’s worse than we thought. And there’s a Starmer on every page.
A particular highlight is the reinstatement of the 2030 ban on internal combustion engines. That won’t go down well, when people notice it. They probably won’t notice it until July 4th.
…giving certainty to manufacturers by restoring the phase-out date of 2030 for new cars with internal combustion engines…
Sure, except the certainty you are giving them is that their sales are going to tank.
What about energy? Well, the section on energy is long, and as I read it, I became more and more incredulous. This is the party that is about to have such a majority for five years that no opposition to any of this nonsense will come from the pressure to win votes. Hopefully Nature will avert catastrophe.
The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face. The clean energy transition represents a huge opportunity to generate growth, tackle the cost-of-living crisis and make Britain energy independent once again. That is why clean energy by 2030 is Labour’s second mission.
Except your clean energy plan, if it were possible, would do the opposite to what you think it would do.
The Conservatives have failed to grasp opportunities in this area for two related reasons. First, because they simply do not accept that economic growth, energy security, lower bills, and addressing climate change can be complementary.
Where has this Conservative party been? I didn’t see it.
…we can make Britain a clean energy superpower.
That calls for a LOL.
We will end the chaotic Conservative chopping and changing on policy, harness clean power to boost our energy security, and invest in home insulation upgrades. We will save families hundreds of pounds on their bills, not just in the short term, but for good.
We will provide leadership at home so we can influence others to ensure every country plays their part in meeting our collective obligations to future generations.
Aha! No, it won’t work, you naive twerps.
In comes Sir Patrick with a delusional speech which, if representative of his understanding of anything, would lead one to question his suitability for the role of Chief Scientific Adviser to the entire effing country.
A national mission for clean power by 2030 is achievable and should be prioritised. We desperately need to end the era of high energy bills, excessive carbon emissions and energy insecurity by accelerating the transition to clean, homegrown energy. Britain can lead on this by treating this mission like the vaccine challenge. We can be the innovators and the implementers, helping ourselves and exporting our solutions worldwide. But if we choose to go slowly, others will provide the answers, and ultimately we’ll end up buying these solutions rather than selling them.”
– Sir Patrick Vallance, Former Chief Scientific Adviser
Then they channel JFK:
Families and businesses will have lower bills for good, from a zero-carbon electricity system. We have chosen this mission not because it is easy, but because working people can never again be left vulnerable to dictators like Putin.
Instead, we’ll be vulnerable to dictators like Xi.
To deliver our clean power mission, Labour will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and marine energy, and ensure we have the long-term energy storage our country needs.
Blah blah blah. At least they’re keeping nuclear on the table. They are going to keep some gas on too, but that does not square with a 100% clean energy grid, does it? They will keep existing gas and oil fields running, but
We will not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis. In addition, we will not grant new coal licences and will ban fracking for good.
INSERT CHOSEN EXPLETIVES OF YOUR OWN HERE
I really can’t be bothered to report on the rest. There will be a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Will this apply to all the wind turbines and solar panels we will need to buy from China? All financial institutions will be forced onto a pathway that is compatible with keeping 1.5 alive.
It’s all dribble, and it’s coming soon. Five years of trashing the country, with not even an abstract [sic] apology at the end.
Next update comes on Tuesday [it was actually Monday], with Reform.
REFORM
Well, it was not actually in Manifesto Week, but today Reform launched their manifesto, or “contract” as they prefer to style it. After the launch, I went to their website to download it, and found that it is seemingly identical to one that has been there for some time. At the time of publication, the leader was named as one Richard Tice. So I need not have waited until today to analyse the “contract’s” contents.
What are Reform offering on climate?
The preamble on the Energy and Environment has much to agree with, but skates rather close to the edge of the facts.
Westminster’s obsession with Net Zero is damaging our livelihoods and the economy. It has sent energy bills soaring. Made it harder for businesses to compete.
Yes, obviously (although none of the other parties will admit it).
But then we have a section that tells us that climate change has always happened (and that by implication, today’s climate change is run-of-the-mill). Grapes were grown in Yorkshire. They do correctly note that more people die of cold than of heat.
CO2 is essential for photosynthesis to enable plant growth. CO2 only represents 0.04% of the atmosphere; the average garden greenhouse has 3 times more!
The first things are true. The factoid about the garden greenhouse not so. Replace “garden” with “commercial” and you might have a point. Your garden greenhouse is likely to be CO2 depleted, not enriched, if you keep the windows shut.
Net Zero sends our money abroad and damages critical industries like steel production. The government has turned Britain from being an exporter of oil and gas into a net importer. They have bet our future on unreliable wind and solar power and destroyed our energy security. It’s time for a common sense energy strategy.
Agreed. What are their policies to counter this situation? Cut’n’pasted from their doco, these are their three “first 100 days” items:
Scrap Net Zero and Related Subsidies.
The UK cost of Net Zero has been estimated by the National Grid and others at some £2trillion or more. It is so big that no one really knows. The public sector is spending billions each year with no accountability or transparency. Ditching Net Zero would save the public sector some £20 billion per year for the next 25 years, possibly more.
Scrap Annual £10 Billion of Renewable Energy Subsidies.
Achieve this through equivalent taxes on them. Renewables are not cheaper. Our bills have increased dramatically in line with the huge increase in renewables capacity over the last 15 years.
Cheap, Secure Energy.
We must use the energy treasure under our feet. Start fast-track licences of North Sea gas and oil. Grant shale gas licences on test sites for 2 years. Then enable major production when safety is proven, with local compensation schemes. The value of shale gas is potentially hundreds of billions over 30 years to the taxpayer. This could transform our nations [sic] fortunes and ensure prosperity for generations to come.
They then offer support to new nuclear, including SMRs.
What’s not to like? Well, I rather like all of it. I don’t know how feasible the idea of taxing renewables the same amount they are subsidised is, but it’s certainly a novel solution. I would have thought it would result in a court challenge, but the present lot seemed to get away with an absurd windfall tax on oil and gas companies, so maybe it’s doable.
I rather think that cancelling Net Zero would lead to an enormous productivity boost, as well as a confidence boost, across the country.
Reform also want to cancel the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate (i.e. the requirement to sell an increasing proportion of leccy cars until the current phase out date of new petrol and diesel vehicles in 2035).
If choice of vote was purely a matter of which party has the best offer on climate, Reform wins easily. But we all know that things are more complex than that.
Climate Scepticism 
Thanks Jit. That’s terrifying. I’m not expecting any good news from you in this mini-series, but some less bad news might be nice.
LikeLike
So, the Limp Dems climate manifesto basically amounts to:
1/ Make Britain mouldy again (more insulation)
2/ Make Britain poorer again (Net Zero)
3/ Make Britain colder and darker again (expensive and ineffective heat pumps plus blackouts because of renewables)
Ed Davies is the poor man’s Ed Milibrain
LikeLike
“What’s the real distance between Sunak and Starmer on climate?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp335p7x315o
Not a lot, seems to be Justin Rowlatt’s conclusion, though he is worried by the end:
With Labour much more optimistic, stressing the opportunities investing in green industries could bring for the UK, the Tories take a more cautious approach, warning about the costs and risks to the country of moving too fast.
This growing distance between the Conservative and Labour parties is causing deep anxiety in environmental circles. Rhetoric does matter and they fear that what is essentially a matter of emphasis now could fracture into significant policy divisions in future.
LikeLike
Regarding Rowlatt, the BBC has proffered an analysis of the Lib Dems’ promises, including on climate and energy, here. It is as superficial as you might expect.
LikeLike
Poor Lib Dems . Apparently they think they can tackle climate change. The BBC’s analysis is indeed superficial, but then in fairness so is the thinking, such as it is, that lies behind this part of the Lib Dems’ manifesto.
LikeLike
Thanks for the precis Jit. I look forward to your next instalment.
In the meantime, the BBC has an equally superficial analysis to the one you have identified, one that they ironically include in their ‘In Depth’ catalogue:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp335p7x315o
The analysis leads to the conclusion that, despite the hype, there isn’t a lot of distance between each party’s green intentions, apart from the Reform Party, of course. This seems a fair enough conclusion but it is the BBC’s explanation for the similarities that deserves to be called superficial:
There are indeed powerful forces, but to imply that they are all physical overlooks the extent to which communities, both scientific and political, can coalesce around an understanding without the need for compelling evidence. To put it bluntly, they are all proceeding as if the evidence of an existential threat is overwhelming, and yet it is so far from overwhelming that we should really be looking for another explanation for the homogeneity. But the BBC abandoned that depth of inquiry years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Updated with the Conservatives’ effort.
LikeLike
Hat tip.
LikeLike
As you say, better than the Lib Dims, but quite a few porkies and not a lot of sense.
LikeLike
Cannot wait until I read what you all think about the Reformistas
LikeLike
Alan, I don’t know why you went into “pending”!
I await Reform’s manifesto with interest. I hazard that, on climate at least, it may be the pick of the bunch. Of course, we all have to weigh up the totality of a party’s offer, and not judge it solely on whether it plans to bankrupt the country in pursuit of a green mirage. Some, probably myself included, might baulk at putting a cross next to Reform’s candidate based on other things.
At the moment my plan is to vote “present” – but I could be persuaded to vote for any of the parties, if their candidate could be bothered to bang on the door and ask me nicely.
LikeLike
It would be astounding if it wasn’t, of those polling at least 5% nationally.
And thus we will get Ed Miliband’s version of climate nirvana.
LikeLike
What are the different parties offering on climate?
First ASS-umptions followed by so-LOOT-ions.
LikeLike
Jit,
Will you be looking at the SDP manifesto? It can be found here:
https://sdp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/SDP_Manifesto_2024.pdf
The relevant section is on numbered page 12 (page 14 overall).
Arguably they are not a national party, as they intend to stand in only 122 seats, but happily I live in one of them.
LikeLike
Mark, I wasn’t going to, but I will now. But do feel free to edit the post with an SDP section, if you have an idle half hour.
LikeLike
Fair maid of the turnip patch, why the interest in the climatic and political machinations of the old mother country? Especially from one who inhabits a country that I believe still uses and exports bright shiny compacted Permian vegetable matter. Where art thy Greens?
LikeLike
Alan, singer under bridges, ‘The world is so full of a number of things.’
H/t R.L. Stevenson.
Before I was a serf I was a student of historian Professor
Geoffrey Blainey who wrote “The Tyranny of Distance. ‘ : )
LikeLike
If you want to go straight to CONSERVATIVES you now can.
Happy to add further such links when more sections are added.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Richard. With that prompt, I have added a bit of internal linkage myself.
Post updated with Green Party and SDP.
LikeLike
Predictable impractical policies from the Greens.
Thanks for looking at the SDP. A curate’s egg, but probably as good as it gets (especially with the rest of the policy mix).
LikeLike
Look here, I thought you did this incrementally expanding post so I didn’t have to read any of the manifestos.
The links do work well, don’t they? As an aside, I will be publishing my manifesto for the next five years of autocratic Cliscep admin shortly and trust that I can count on the support of all readers, using the normal Hoxha methods.
LikeLike
On a more serious note, Ben Pile’s suggestion for a letter to send to all the candidates in your (and my) constituency looks ace.
Ask your parliamentary candidates about their Net Zero plans
LikeLiked by 1 person
Updated with the Labour manifesto.
LikeLike
Forgot to link to the Labour manifesto.
LikeLike
Good grief , Labour’s mad, absurd, ignorant, naive and hugely damaging energy policy is even worse than I had feared it would be. As for this:
…economic growth, energy security, lower bills, and addressing climate change can be complementary…
It simply demonstrates that they are no more fit to govern than are the Tories. As my grandfather would have said, I wouldn’t trust them to run a Christmas club.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I realise you haven’t got to the SNP yet, but this would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious:
“Forbes sets out SNP’s ‘in-between’ stance on oil and gas”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw99vqyz2p4o
The SNP are “in-between” the Conservatives and Labour policy on new licences for oil and gas fields in the North Sea, the deputy first minister has said.
Speaking on BBC’s Question Time programme Kate Forbes said the party would consider new licences to drill in the North Sea on a “case-by-case” basis.
She added that this position would be in contrast to Conservative plans to approve many new licences, but also avoid Labour’s stance of refusing to approve new ones, which she claimed would risk thousands of jobs.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said the claims regarding job losses were “scaremongering“.
The Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross accused Labour of having “given up” on north east Scotland, while the SNP were trying to “ride two horses at once“.
A plague on all their houses!
LikeLike
I’ll be voting Reform on July 4th. Much as I have my reservations about them and about Farage, the rest of the main parties are so catastrophically bad, it is the only sensible choice. Anybody who votes for Starmer’s Labour party needs their head examining IMO. The slightly crazier option would be to turn up at the Polling office and self-immolate.
LikeLike
Jaime (and everyone else), if you go here, you can see the estimated chances of each party winning each seat. For my own Norwich North, it gives a 92% likelihood of a Labour win and 8% for the Conservatives. The other parties standing are on 0% chance.
I will make my own decision based on what the Reform manifesto comes out with, but most importantly to me, whether any of the candidates can be bothered to knock.
LikeLike
Let’s be realistic, unless something dramatic happens over the next few weeks, Labour are going to win the next U.K. election, perhaps even with a super-majority. So our next conversations ought to be about the length of time it will take for reality to set into Labour about NetZero and how individuals might aid them to achieve this state. In my view voting for any other party than the two main contenders only increases Labour’s majority so it doesn’t matter a jot how other parties suggest they will tackle climate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alan, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re correct, but I can’t vote Conservative. Can you?
I see this election (at least I hope this will prove to be the case) as the last hurrah of a system whereby the opposition arm of the Uniparty wins power at the expense of the outgoing arm of the Uniparty. The more votes that are cast in favour of parties which might break the mould, the better.
I am fortunate in being able to vote SDP. I am not sure how I would vote if the Reform Party was the only option available to me as a non-Uniparty vote.
LikeLike
Should one be defeatist or delusional? Answer: realistic.
I’m with Kendall and Peter Hitchens, as ever. PH this morning:
This respondent wants to vote with hope attached
https://x.com/mjamesevans/status/1801538591664820338
(Tweet embedding no longer seems to work on WordPress for me.)
If you’re in a constituency where either the SDP or Reform might win I fully understand.
Otherwise I don’t.
LikeLike
I am with Matthew Evans in that tweet. We will never break the stranglehold of the Uniparty unless we stop voting for one or other of its arms. As things stand I regard Labour and Tories as being almost equally poor options. I can’t bring myself to vote for either of them in order to keep the other one out. I need a better reason than that to vote.
LikeLike
Eg my own constituency of Weston-super-Mare
Labour predicted to win easily with 42.8% after 2019’s 56.5% for the Tories
Reform predicted to get 13.3%
Add that to today’s Tory predicted vote …
(Thanks to Jit for the link to that site.)
LikeLike
“turn up at the Polling office and self-immolate”
“I can’t bring myself to vote for either of them”
Voting isn’t meant to be about a fuzzy feeling.
It should be as cold as steel.
LikeLike
Richard,
I regard my decision as being a calculated one. I am by inclination left of centre, and am far from being a Conservative voter at the best of times, and these most certainly are not the best of times.
If saner heads prevailed in Labour ranks, I would probably vote Labour, but saner heads don’t prevail, so I can’t vote for them either.
Inevitably therefore if I am to vote at all, I will almost certainly vote for a candidate who won’t become my MP. I don’t think that matters. I can’t in conscience vote for one of the two main candidates on the basis that he represents by a tiny fraction a lesser evil than the other one.
We are desperately in need of a major change in UK politics, and we won’t achieve it so long as people keep voting for the tried and untrusted old failures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No fuzzy feelings here. As Mark says, it is a matter of conscience. What is the point of Parties releasing manifestos if voters are just going to vote not on the basis of examining policies but on ‘cold as steel’ calculations based on supposedly getting the best out of an outrageously biased electoral system? The popular vote matters, even if it doesn’t return sitting MPs. What matters is that the Uniparty are seen to be thoroughly rejected by the demos. That is why I am going to vote Reform – for Reform of our failed democratic and electoral system. It won’t happen overnight on July 4th, but it’s a start.
LikeLike
The Uniparty clearly hasn’t decided on a few details of policy
https://x.com/rdrake98/status/1801342281313828871
https://x.com/rdrake98/status/1801343260797059203
I know that’s not climate but it points to a really important point of difference, affecting the safety and well-being of the nation’s most vulnerable. (Spoiler: Based on the manifesto, Starmer and Streeting have been extremely slimy about the Cass Review.)
And there are differences in the level of stupidity on energy/climate.
Those matter, as does the issue Hitchens raises (in reply to someone who thinks Reform could be the official Opposition on 5th July) that enough Reform votes spread across the UK could make the Lib Dems the official Opposition.
It’s a rotten system but the Uniparty trope gets us nowhere at a moment of peril.
LikeLike
“Unite refused to endorse Labour after Scots oil and gas ‘failure'”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24386711.unite-refuses-endorse-labour-manifesto-scots-oil-gas/
One of Britain’s most powerful unions and key funder of Labour the overwhelming favourites to form the next UK government, has refused to endorse the party’s manifesto after it advocated a ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration licences, it can be revealed.
It marks a stepping up of the union’s rebellion against the party’s oil and gas stance which it fears will cost Scottish jobs.
LikeLike
“Labour vs Conservative Manifesto Pledges on the Environment: Spot the Difference”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/14/labour-vs-conservative-manifesto-pledges-on-the-environment-spot-the-difference/
LikeLike
“How do the UK parties rate on their environmental manifesto pledges?Four environmental experts analyse the election manifestos of Labour, the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/14/environmental-manifesto-pledges-uk-election-parties
Guardian writers see these things differently…
LikeLike
I missed this yesterday on the Daily Sceptic from Chris Morrison:
BBC Hails Green Election Letter From “408 Climate Scientists” Signed by Psychologists, Accountants and Landscape Designers
He republishes Ben Pile’s research on how much Jeremy Grantham has ‘bought’ politicians, NGOs and academia since 2007. $99 million and counting, from a quick eyeball.
LikeLike
I do not understand this talk of two arms of a uniparty especially by persons that protest they could not possibly vote for one of the “arms”. For me Labour and the Conservatives seem to be so very different from each other and certainly in their utterances could not be more different. It is true that in some respects they have become even more similar as this year both parties seem determined to blatantly lie about the other. As an example that has grated with me particularly this year, the repeated insistence by Richi Sunak and other tory spokespersons that Labour has no plans whatsoever, sometimes on news programmes immediately after a item that has outlined a specific Labour plan. And this untruth has been repeated ad nausium. This has been so noticeable because it has been repeated for so long. Terminological inexactitudes from Labour have been present perhaps more than I remember them in previous election periods but not as persistently as the Tories.
I do not know how to vote. Voting Labour would probably be a wasted vote in my all-blue constituency and, as Mark surmised, I am unlikely to force myself to vote Conservative. Voting for a smaller party here would probably be as futile as spoiling my vote. As the bearer of a postal vote I cannot even publicly destroy my vote in a way that displays my frustration.
LikeLike
If the Tories have any sense (they don’t appear to), they would make hay with this (on this thread at 18.01):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69117992
Labour leader Keir Starmer says he is prepared to make enemies in order to grow the economy, speaking in an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson.
He was asked if he would tell people who are objecting to electricity pylons or housing developments being built near their homes that they would have to see these plans go ahead.
“We’re going to have to be tough, we’re going to have to change the way things are done,” he says.
He gives an anecdote of a chief executive of an energy company who he asked how long it would take to build a wind turbine farm.
Starmer recalls this a chief executive told him “two years”, adding that they wouldn’t get any power out of it for 13 years because of the time taken for planning and to get the grid connected.
“We cannot go on like that,” Starmer says.
It was a great Labour government (greater than any that will be fronted by Starmer) that introduced planning legislation so as to prevent (among others) big businesses from building what they wanted, where they wanted, when they wanted. Now it seems net zero and big green trump all that. Shame on you, Starmer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good point Mark.
Kemi Badenoch would make mincemeat of this authoritarianism if she was party leader.
I’m not denying that Farage has communication skills either. But anyway.
(I’d relax planning rules to build more new houses. But not for pointless Net Zero.)
LikeLike
For those who can’t face voting for any of the major parties, there are a number of independent candidates standing, (e.g. Andrew Feinstein, ex-African National Congress, standing against Starmer in St Pancras) plus George Galloway’s Workers’ Party.
And there’s always the Monster Raving Loony Party. Never forget, they once forced David Steel into 4th place in a by election, causing him to renounce his ambitions to be PM & be hauled off to the House of Lords out of harm’s way.
LikeLike
Jaime:
Good question. (Though I’d stick with my ‘rotten system’ rather than your ‘outrageously biased’ one. Them’s the rules. And I wouldn’t scrap FPTP in future either. But that’s another deeply different debate. We talking 4th July here.)
So, in answer to:
I found Fraser Nelson’s punchy chat with Peter Hitchens three days ago pretty helpful.
I’m not sure if Hitchens (a climate sceptic who cares about many other things, as I do) is right about how dangerous Starmer is. I think the Labour leader’s treatment of the very brave Rosie Duffield has been appalling. (And another gender critical lady’s Labour’s manifesto is Stonewall lite in UnHerd I think substantiates my calling Starmer and Streeting slimy upthread.) Both very bad signs. All that apart, I appreciated Nelson kicking the tires of this part of the Hitchens shtick.
But on how manifestos relate to what election-winning parties actually do I agree with both men.
If one cares, cold as steel is the only way to go.
LikeLike
This morning David Turver has published this:
Election 2024: Energy Policy by Party
Dissecting the policies and claims for energy policy made by the main parties
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/election-2024-energy-policy-by-party
His final comment says it all:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well, exactly. Better Dumb than Dumber. And, given that manifestos are a limited guide to action, to put it mildly, pray that a chagrined right-of-centre party does some really decent opinion-polling in the next five years and, from that, comes up with something closer to the Reform offering on energy policy this time.
Actually creating change is a great deal harder than getting a manifesto right. I think since 2010 the only really striking positive change for the UK is that we now lead the children’s literacy tables. Very important for the future, including assessment of the likes of the excellent David Turver. But that’s it. (Well, an imperfect Brexit too. But I stop here.)
LikeLike
Thanks for the link to Spectator TV, Richard. I must say I found myself on the side of “creative destruction” which I think was the term Fraser Nelson used. I take it as a given that Labour is the next government. The questions that follow are: how big is the majority (large, if polls are to be believed); and what is the character of the opposition? If the Tories do moderately well, I can see them carrying on with the cross-party support for the Net Zero madness. They may do so if they are all but destroyed. I do not know. But as I wrote in Post-election Blues, the Net Zero agenda would be an immediate sore point that would enable the new Opposition to start changing the conversation.
LikeLike
Net zero or not net zero:
“Lib Dems call for rural fuel duty relief expansion”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedd744kq40o
The Liberal Democrats earlier pledged in its manifesto, external to help motorists in rural areas who face higher fuel costs by expanding rural fuel duty relief – but have now expanded on their plans.
Fuel retailers can apply for relief of 5p per litre of petrol or diesel, which is then passed on to motorists through reductions in price at the pump.
Mr Davey said: “People in rural areas have been clobbered by the cost-of-living crisis and the Conservatives have just not done enough to support them.
“The Conservatives have let the cost-of-living crisis hit rural communities hard.
“They have ignored Liberal Democrat calls to expand rural fuel duty relief, left roads to crumble and cut public transport options, including rural bus routes.“
The Conservative government brought in a temporary cut to the overall rate of fuel duty in 2022, and it has remained in place since then, with the party’s manifesto mentio, externalning, external , externalthat it is something which has been “prioritised“.
Why does the BBC refer to Sir Ed as Mr Davey? Sir Ed might like to reflect that the cost of living crisis has largely been caused by energy costs, which have been raised by green subsidies and reliance on expensive renewables.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NZW’s Andrew Montford doesn’t seem to be over keen on Labour’s energy plans:
The fairy tale of Labour’s Brothers Grim
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/labour-energy-manifesto
However he’s even handed in his criticism:
LikeLiked by 3 people
The word “iridescence” means changing colours as an object is moved slightly. I didn’t realise that British politics can be described with such a word. Yesterday’s paper had a constituency map with colours depicting current projected party winners. I did a double take looking at East Anglia which previously had been an area of solid blue with a speck of red for Norwich. Yesterday’s map was now largely red excepting coastal Norfolk. Political iridescence indeed.
LikeLike
Jit: Thanks for that. I think to be fair that Nelson puts forward the ‘creative destruction’ option as one that others are advocating or hoping for. I think he himself is open-minded.
I’m increasingly against the destruction part and highly sceptical of the creative part.
But we have to play the cards we’re dealt, from the electorate, under FPTP.
LikeLike
I should add that, whatever happens, I agree that we must find a way (or hope) to “enable the new Opposition to start changing the conversation” about Net Zero.
LikeLike
Maybe, just maybe (perhaps we have Reform to thank for this) energy policy may yet be an important issue in this election:
“Labour’s Oil and Gas Ban Will Create £4.5 Billion Tax Black Hole, Energy Secretary Warns”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/17/labours-oil-and-gas-ban-will-create-4-5-billion-tax-black-hole-energy-secretary-warns/
Claire Coutinho’s assessment of Labour’s energy policy:
She wrote: “It would be a triumph of ideology over common sense. Exporting jobs for the sake of importing virtue signalling. The choice is clear.
“Labour’s proposals will destroy jobs, raise taxes and hike up your bills. In a truism of all Labour governments – once they have run out of money, they will come for yours.”…
…Sir Keir pressed ahead with the ban on new drilling despite facing fierce opposition from the unions, who warned it was “irresponsible”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark:
Absolutely. That is the advantage of the opinion polls spelling disaster for the Tories and having a decent energy policy manifesto from the party that is causing additional hemorrhaging of the Tory vote (beyond the many ‘already fed up’s). Claire Coutinho was I assume arguing for a stronger line against Net Zero in their manifesto but the timorous/crony-capitalist wing won out.
Still, (broken record time), cold as steel as she goes. Or something.
LikeLike
Let’s try an embedded tweet now, on Reform’s manifesto as seen by Andrew Montford.
https://x.com/fairervotingpty/status/1802705110717305254
Nope, not working. But this in response to Andrew’s fairly positive verdict:
That I both agree with, in part, and think is outrageously confident of the future. What about Labour’s constitution-changing plans that Hitchens is concerned about, plus giving the vote to 16-year-olds, all to guarantee it is more or less impossible to get rid of the Starmerists and all their highly ideological stances, not least their disastrous Net Zero dogma?
https://x.com/WayneGb88/status/1802673200116932721
That’s the latest retweet from the same guy, David Allen. A reminder that this election isn’t, for many, only about energy – or even transgenderism.
And that’s important because a big % vote for Reform can be interpreted in so many different ways. Some want Net Zero scrapped, some simply want to prevent the UK becoming part of an Islamist caliphate. You can’t tell from a single %.
LikeLike
The Spectator has three articles this afternoon about the Reform manifesto – essentially all trying not to be too supportive. Unlike commentators who are nearly all supportive. This was especially liked:
Well said that man.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, that is similar to the target I have advocated in these pages.
LikeLiked by 2 people
— Ben Chu, as the BBC analyses Reform’s policies
That is quite frankly either a moronic statement, or deliberately misleading.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit,
I’m afraid that is what we are up against. Frankly, I wouldn’t give a bucketful of warm spit for what most economists judge.
LikeLike
It’s probably fair to say that throughout history, most economists have been wrong.
LikeLike
Jit: that BBC analysis goes on to say this:
Equally moronic. A link would be useful.
LikeLike
This article by Thomas Osborne an editorial assistant at spiked.
doesn’t contain anything new but is nonetheless a useful summary:
Britain will pay a high price for Labour’s Net Zero fanaticism
Keir Starmer’s promise of cheap, green energy is a dangerous fantasy.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/17/britain-will-pay-a-high-price-for-labours-net-zero-fanaticism/
His conclusion:
It is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When do we come to terms with the fact that this ‘dangerous fantasy’ is driven not primarily by cult-like obsessive zealotry but by malign intent? Labour has pointedly ignored the warnings of its own Unions re. North Sea gas and oil licences. They are pushing this relentlessly, with full knowledge of the devastating consequences and are knowingly communicating a veritable tide of misinformation, disinformation and direct lies to the public (with the assistance of the national broadcaster) in order to justify their apparently ‘insane’ destructive policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, with my electrical engineering background I realised many years ago that the CCA and similar policies would be very destructive to the UK economy and to ordinary people. I therefore started a letter writing campaign some 10 years ago; I have written primarily to politicians and key opinion formers.
The person I have written to the most is my local Labour MP. My initial letter was forwarded to the relevant minister (a Lib-Dem) from whom I received a short reply advising me how wonderfully well battery performance was improving. [I found this rather irritating since all the time I had been in the industry it was always understood that the ‘better battery’ was always some 10 to 30 years in the future.]
Since that initial reply I do not recall having received any response to my letters other than the automatically generated replies created by the ‘They Work For You’ e-mail system. While I have received replies from non-politicians I do not recall receiving a single reply to any of my letters (most of which were related to energy/climate policy) from any politician of any UK political party. It is though the entire political class wanted to avoid engaging the public on this topic.
My interim conclusion is that the politicians have not quite got the hang of this democracy thingy … or I haven’t. Either way, I am not surprised that Eatwell & Goodwin in their book about National Populism noted that (i) many people are turning away from politics due to disillusionment, and (ii) people feel that policies are imposed upon them from above without their having had much say in the matter – a key example, due to its enormous consequences, being the CCA/Net Zero play which has so enriched rent-seekers/crony capitalists at the expense of the woman on the Clapham omnibus.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not satisfied with BBC Verify, the BBC now gives us BBC In Depth:
“Voters are being taken for fools on the economy”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgg4ze1edpo
I look forward to the next one in the series – “Voters are being taken for fools on Net Zero”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime:
I think it’s both but I agree it’s disastrous to ignore, out of misguided politeness, the malign intent.
As I’ve said before, it was the introduction of the ‘denier/denial’ meme for any kind of climate dissent, on science or policy, explicitly making the connection with holocaust denial, which I first noticed in 2007, that spoke of the worst possible intent. And since then we’ve seen the same phony but evil demonisation of the opposition in other very important areas.
Eric Weinstein thinks of himself as a man of the Left. Yesterday he described this same syndrome in his own, perhaps more sophisticated, language.
Read the rest in his long tweet.
Something has gone very, very wrong with almost all the Left in the West.
Not that Trump or Sunak have got everything right.
But … where do we go next? That does go way beyond manifestos.
LikeLiked by 4 people
‘… where do we go next?’
First, we have no choice but to await the advent of a Labour administration. And I suppose Jaime expects it, motivated by malign intent, to set about the deliberate destruction of the UK’s economy and the widespread immiseration of most of its citizens (except of course the elite few) – sitting back with quiet satisfaction as they observe the success of their plans. Well, I don’t buy it. However, at least in the initial phase of our new government, that hardly matters because cult-like zealotry will have much the same effect as malign intent: a few setbacks but nothing serious.
But it’s what happens next that will be interesting. And this is where my and Jaime’s positions will diverge. Quite soon – as I’ve said before, within months rather than years – everything will start to go badly wrong as commissioning all those turbines and solar farms, ‘rewiring Britain’, resolving intermittency etc. turn out to be vastly more expensive and difficult than was indicated and ordinary people, who so far have essentially shown little serious interest in energy policy, begin to notice that what’s happening is going to hurt. In my scenario, faced with this harsh and unexpected reality, I think that government will have no alternative but to beat a rapid and humiliating retreat and completely rethink UK energy policy. In Jaime’s scenario however, I assume they will plough on, deliberately driving the UK even deeper into irreversible disaster
We’ll see. Quite soon.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin, I find my position lies between yours and Jaime’s. Yes, things will probably go badly wrong in short order on the energy front. But will the government order the 30 to 50GW of CCGT that the civil service says we need? That will be a good early indicator of the direction of travel/stasis.
Or will we drive further and further into Never Never Land? No turning back, because the policy cannot be wrong – we can’t be trying hard enough. Onward and upward/downward into blackouts – somewhat reminiscent of the Heath government’s plight back in circa 1970.
Only then, once the blackouts begin to bite, will there be some dim realization that luxury beliefs and reality cannot coexist for ever, even in Never Never Land – just as Ayn Rand had warned us, had we had but half an ear for her siren warning.
Only then will the off-ramp of a more rational and traditional energy policy be (grudgingly) sought. Sadly, much harm, unnecessary harm, will have been done … but reality may have finally dawned on the political and media elites of the UK.
As you say, Robin, it is not long to wait now. Brace for landing! Regards, John C.
LikeLike
The latest poll by Savanta for the Telegraph has Labour on 516 seats, Conservatives on 53, and the Liberal Democrats on 50. That may be beyond reality, but on those results it would be a close race between orange and blue to be the official Opposition.
LikeLike
Jit: the polls are coming up with wildly differing results. For example, in contrast with the Savanta poll, Matt Goodwin has a poll this evening that suggests Labour will get about 240 seats, the Tories about 45, LibDems about 64 and Reform about (an utterly amazing) 50. The Greens would get about 2. This would mean a close race between the LibDems and Reform (!) to be the official Opposition. The only thing they seem to have in common is that Labour are on track for a big win on 4 July and that the Tories are in for an almighty drubbing.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/state-of-the-race-bombshell-poll
LikeLike
Robin, whether Labour are forced to beat a humiliating retreat from Net Zero within months or years is not necessarily indicative of whether or not their apparently insane energy policies are driven by a significant proportion of malign intent, rather than just ideological zeal and bad science. For them to u-turn in months I would think that the public kickback would have to be pretty spectacular and I don’t think the economic and practical impossibility of their goals is going to become that apparent, so quickly. It will probably take at least 2 to 3 years and they will do their very best to hide any failings. But even in the unlikely event that they are forced into retreat very quickly, that doesn’t mean that they did not deliberately set out with the intention to wreck the free market economy and basically implement a command economy where access to energy is strictly controlled. If Starmer, Reeves and Miliband do not have malign intentions, why are they deliberately lying to the voting British public on X? It is just too implausible to suppose that all three do not know they are attempting to deceive the public by posting this pack of lies, which has already been torn to pieces:
https://x.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1803311583826731112
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1803310972305629470
Politicians always make promises they can’t keep at elections, but these are blatant, transparent lies.
LikeLike
The ‘up to £300‘ promise was based on an Ember analysis which I’ve no doubt they believed when it was published. They may now have their doubts (maybe not) but, as it’s fundamental to their climate pitch, they’re hardly going to change it now. It’s not an evidence of malign intent but an indication that unsurprisingly they’re acting as all politicians do when they’re heading into an election.
LikeLike
Robin, is that really fair since they could and should have been monitoring this fundamental policy issue for years? In that time they could and should have sought out the best (i.e. most reliable, most robust) analysis and then based their election pitch on that. However, as Jaime indicates, they have not done that. Instead they have gone with their existing half-baked ideas and prejudices. If it is not malign intent then is it not some toxic brew of incompetence, lack of due diligence, lack of precautionary principle, disregard for the interests of the majority of the people (i.e. those who are outside their elitist Westminster bubble) and irresponsibility?
With energy policy we are dealing with the fundamental power house of the economy; it deserves considered, robust analysis. I grant that with some minor policy issue then a political party caught in a snap election can grab-and-go to the electorate. But energy should not be like that, should it? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard, yesterday you wrote, “Something has gone very, very wrong with almost all the Left in the West.” I entirely agree, but is this the thread to discuss that very important issue? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John, you ask ‘.. is it not some toxic brew of incompetence, lack of due diligence, lack of precautionary principle, disregard for the interests of the majority of the people (i.e. those who are outside their elitist Westminster bubble) and irresponsibility?‘
Yes, all of those. I don’t believe they’ve been interested in considering anything that didn’t confirm their absurd beliefs. And the Ember report did.
‘… energy should not be like that, should it?‘. No, it certainly shouldn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people