[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.

Tags: , , ,

164 Comments

  1. 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.

    Like

  2. 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

    Like

  3. “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.

    Like

  4. 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.

    Like

  5. 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.

    Like

  6. 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:

    Maybe this broad consensus on climate shouldn’t be a surprise – after all, there are powerful forces limiting how far the major parties are willing to stray from the green centre ground. New figures this week showed May 2024 was the warmest in recorded history globally, meaning the past 12 months have each been the hottest on record for the time of year. The UN chief Antonio Guterres responded with a warning that climate change was “pushing planetary boundaries to the brink”.

    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.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. As you say, better than the Lib Dims, but quite a few porkies and not a lot of sense.

    Like

  11. 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.

    Like

  12. I await Reform’s manifesto with interest. I hazard that, on climate at least, it may be the pick of the bunch.

    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.

    Like

  15. 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.

    Like

  16. 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?

    Like

  17. 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. ‘ : )

    Like

  19. Thanks Richard. With that prompt, I have added a bit of internal linkage myself.

    Post updated with Green Party and SDP.

    Like

  20. 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).

    Like

  21. 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.

    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.

    Like

  25. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. 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!

    Like

  27. 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.

    Like

  28. 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.

    Like

  29. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. 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.

    Like

  31. Should one be defeatist or delusional? Answer: realistic.

    I’m with Kendall and Peter Hitchens, as ever. PH this morning:

    It’s a pity people vote without understanding the electoral system . Like driving without any practical knowledge of roadcraft. Almost all Reform votes will go to waste. If a lot of people vote Reform, the Lib Dens might become the official opposition to Labour. But not Reform.

    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.

    Like

  32. 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.

    Like

  33. 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.)

    Like

  34. “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.

    Like

  35. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. 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.

    Like

  37. 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.

    Like

  38. “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.

    Like

  42. 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.

    Like

  43. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. 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.)

    Like

  45. 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.

    Like

  46. Jaime:

    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?

    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:

    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 our current electoral system?

    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.

    Like

  47. 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:

    We might characterise the Conservative and Labour policies as Dumb and Dumber, the Liberal Democrats as insane and the Greens as batshit crazy. Only Reform and a couple of minor parties have anything approaching a sensible energy policy. We deserve better. Use your vote wisely.

    Liked by 4 people

  48. Use your vote wisely.

    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.)

    Like

  49. 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.

    Like

  50. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. 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:

    As with the other energy manifestos so far, Labour’s effort is a fairy tale, entirely devoid of any connection to engineering or economic realities. It is best handled with ridicule.

    Liked by 3 people

  52. 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.

    Like

  53. 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.

    Like

  54. 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.

    Like

  55. 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”.

    Liked by 2 people

  56. Mark:

    perhaps we have Reform to thank for this advantage

    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.

    Like

  57. 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:

    It is generally, the problem, though, is that under our FPTP system they will never be in a position to enact any of it. You would have thought they might show more interest in reforming that as a long term plan. By the time the next election comes round, the Tories will have re-grouped and be very formidable against a hated Labour government and Reform will be a busted flush

    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 %.

    Like

  58. 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:

    The solution to Net Zero is to say we will index our emissions to those of China, the USA and India, i.e. we’ll match whatever they achieve. If they achieve nothing in respect of their 50.3% share of emissions, there’s no point us faffing about with our 1%. If they can achieve reductions, then so can we.

    Well said that man.

    Liked by 2 people

  60. Most economists judge that the costs of the UK failing to pursue net zero will ultimately be greater than the costs of achieving it.

    — Ben Chu, as the BBC analyses Reform’s policies

    That is quite frankly either a moronic statement, or deliberately misleading.

    Liked by 2 people

  61. 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.

    Like

  62. It’s probably fair to say that throughout history, most economists have been wrong.

    Like

  63. Jit: that BBC analysis goes on to say this:

    The OBR produced a scenario of “unmitigated global warming” in 2021 which showed UK public sector net debt rising to 300% of GDP by the end of the century due to economic shocks of a hotter climate.

    Equally moronic. A link would be useful.

    Like

  64. 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:

    Ultimately, this Net Zero zealotry puts Labour directly at odds with the interests of ordinary working Britons. It risks higher bills, blackouts and major job losses. Keir Starmer’s promise of a clean, green future is a dangerous fantasy.

    It is.

    Liked by 2 people

  65. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. 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.

    Liked by 3 people

  68. Jaime:

    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?

    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.

    One question I get a lot is “What explains your asymmetric focus on Democrats and the Left?”

    The short answer, after some soul searching and introspection, is simply this: “The Gaslighting of Experts.”

    I see the Republican party fighting the experts they oppose. I don’t see them trying to gaslight them much.

    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.

    Liked by 4 people

  69. ‘… 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.

    Liked by 3 people

  70. 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.

    Like

  71. 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.

    Like

  72. 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

    Like

  73. 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:

    Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300. Family finances will be my priority.

    https://x.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1803311583826731112

    My Labour government will tackle the root causes of the cost of living crisis and help families save up to £300 off their energy bills.

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1803310972305629470

    Politicians always make promises they can’t keep at elections, but these are blatant, transparent lies.

    Like

  74. 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.

    Like

  75. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  76. 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.

    Like

  77. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  78. “Labour’s net zero grid will require ‘huge sacrifice’, warns energy chief

    Pulling off green shift by 2030 is unrealistic, Mitsubishi Power boss says”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/22/labours-net-zero-grid-require-huge-sacrifice-industry-chief/

    Labour’s plan for a net zero grid by 2030 is unrealistic and will require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, a leading power station builder has warned.

    Javier Cavada, European boss of Mitsubishi Power, said the rollout of green energy schemes planned by Sir Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, would have to move at an unprecedented speed to stand a chance of success.

    He also warned it would be prohibitively expensive and questioned whether completely eliminating emissions from gas-fired power plants, which generated one third of Britain’s electricity last year, was a sensible immediate priority. 

    Asked whether the 2030 target was feasible, Mr Cavada said: “In my years at Mitsubishi and, frankly, my 48 years on the planet, this would be a speed that I have never seen anywhere else.

    “Can you do it? You definitely can. But financially? Well, the cost is very large.…

    …Higher spending on the energy system raises the prospect of households and businesses shouldering increased costs through taxes or bills.

    Mr Cavada is the latest energy industry figure to express scepticism about Labour’s plans, which the Conservatives have claimed would risk blackouts. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the petrochemicals billionaire, said on Thursday that Labour’s net zero grid target was “absurd”...

    …Electricity demand is expected to rise from around 300 terawatt hours per year today to about 360 terawatt hours by 2030...

    Liked by 1 person

  79. The Tories have expended a lot of effort ridiculing Labour’s scheme, when their own differs only in timing, not destination. They would have a leg to stand on if they had a sensible policy of their own. (I appreciate this statement does not come from the Tories but Mitsubishi.)

    Meanwhile, the Tories are also desperately flailing against Farage’s rather innocuous comment about the West having provoked Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I should have thought this to be rather uncontroversial, merely by imagining what would have happened in a counterfactual world. It says nothing about moral blame, which Farage squarely pointed at Putin. A summary at UnHerd.

    Liked by 2 people

  80. Jit: I’m surprised to see you write that in support of Farage in June 2024. Did not Richard Moore, chief of MI6, tweet on 24th February 2022:

    This attack was long planned, unprovoked, cruel aggression. No amount of Russian disinformation will now disguise that fact from the international community.

    — https://x.com/ChiefMI6/status/1496939918416916484

    As you may have detected I thought that was baloney at the time. I thought we (US and allies) had provoked Russia, from the Maidan coup in 2014 onwards, and that over-simplifying the story was going to be disastrous in making a peace deal far more difficult to achieve. I think Farage was right in what he said in this area. As was Peter Hitchens. And Hitchens was and is right on who to vote against on 4th July, despite the good things on Net Zero in the Reform manifesto.

    Liked by 1 person

  81. Richard, well there is a semantic nuance involved here. In my dictionary, it is possible to undertake an action that will innocently provoke an attack on oneself. The blame for the attack still resides with the attacking party. It’s obvious that if Ukraine was still eastward facing rather than westward facing, Putin would not have invaded. You do not need to invade an ally. Someone moving closer to a geopolitical enemy of great power? More likely to happen.

    “Unprovoked” in that tweet can be read as true or false, depending on the intent of the act doing the provoking. I think.

    Blame should not attach to Ukraine or the West, save for being naive. With foresight, they could have headed off the attack at the pass.

    Liked by 2 people

  82. From today’s Telegraph :

    Ed Miliband: ‘I’ll take on the wind farm Nimbys from day one’
    Interview: Shadow energy secretary on how Labour plans to wean Britain off gas

    Some key extracts:

    At the heart of that task is a single key challenge – breaking the link between power generation and the burning of gas. Mr Miliband said this may be the key metric on which he could eventually be judged.

    “The electricity part of it [net zero] is really important,” Mr Miliband said. “A clean power system is the linchpin of the road to decarbonisation. “We haven’t just selected 2030 for clean power because we think it’s achievable. We do think it is achievable, but also because it will be the bedrock of the drive to net zero … 2030 is a crucial staging post on that road.”

    Mr Miliband said if that electricity were still being generated by burning gas it would render the exercise fairly pointless – so decarbonising the grid is Labour’s priority.

    “My message to Telegraph readers, if I can be so bold, is support clean energy, not just because it’s the right thing for the climate, but because it’s the right thing for energy security, for lower bills and for jobs. “Clean energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels, and more secure – because dictators can’t control it.”

    If nothing else this is going to be interesting – especially as, according to THIS Labour plans to maintain ‘a strategic reserve of backup gas power stations to guarantee security of supply’. As this ‘reserve’ would necessarily be in regular use, surely the whole exercise would be hopelessly pointless?

    Liked by 3 people

  83. On the US-Ukraine history since 2014, and US interventionism more generally, since Afghanistan and Iraq, where the UK, Labour and Tory, has stood with the US, this is very crisp from Jeffrey Sachs. I’m not saying I agree with every word but the history vis-a-vis Ukraine, which I think is totally accurate, makes a nonsense of what Richard Moore said on 24 Feb 22.

    Piers Morgan being educated by Jeffrey Sachs…..

    It’s another area one could say the ‘Uniparty’ is now pitted against Reform and its brave leader.

    If Starmer wins I’d still prefer the opposition to be led by Kemi Badenoch.

    Liked by 1 person

  84. An interesting piece from Douglas Fraser, one of the few serious journalists at the BBC (there are a few, thankfully) for whom I have quite a bit of respect:

    “What would ‘GB Energy’ mean for Scotland’s green economy?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxxljq070o

    I found this bit particularly interesting – we could do with a few more journalists making these points rather than parroting the usual claptrap:

    ...What, though, of that claim that GB Energy will “cut bills for good”? That is a good selling point to voters, but it’s harder to make that connection.

    It seems to depend on the assertion that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. That depends, in turn, on the form of renewable energy, on the amount loaded on to bills in subsidy, and on the price of fossil fuels.

    The latter is volatile. The gas price has fallen a long way in the past two years, and it’s not certain that renewables will remain cheaper “for good”.

    There is no mechanism mentioned that indicates the the power generated by a GB Energy turbine would be any cheaper for customers than any other turbine.

    Nor is it clear how this fits with Scottish Labour’s support for a new generation of nuclear power north of the Border. If it is priced like the new nuclear plants being built in England and Wales, it could put bills up – if not for good, then for a long time….

    Like

  85. This is interesting. First read this article by meteorologist Ivor Williams:
    Unforgivable ignorance at the heart of Net Zero

    As you’ll see, it sets out in straightforward detail how critics of Net Zero and our political leaders miss its most obvious flaw – that the wind doesn’t always blow or the sun always shine – and how the problem will be much worse in 2030. He attributes this to ignorance about meteorological reality.

    But then read the comments. And immediately you’ll find loud and popular assertion that it’s not ignorance – no, the politicians understand the problem all too well: it’s their deliberate intent is to destroy Britain – i.e. Jaimie’s position.

    I don’t buy it. Others?

    Like

  86. No, I don’t believe that. I also think it enables people to point at sceptics and say what a load of nutjobs we are.

    What would be the motivation for such a conspiracy? I see none. Its existence would inevitably have leaked into the public domain, which it hasn’t (save for the “eating insects” memes etc).

    It is far more logical to believe that the purveyors of Net Zero actually do so because they think it can and will work. They are supported by (I do not use the term lightly) liars who deliberately produce misleading statements and reports. This latter group do not consider what they do to be wrong. Rather, they are just putting a little spin on things for the greater good – the Net Zero project.

    Of course, the purveyors of Net Zero do not want to hear about potential critical failures. They are happily supplied with lots of data and reports that reassure them that the project is achievable and beneficial. Superficial logic is on their side (“the wind is free”).

    Any one of them, alone, could be persuaded of the facts by a well-informed sceptic within an hour. But as matters are, sceptics are seen as a shunned group with immoral views and ulterior motives (“deniers”). We have hardly a voice, beyond muttering bitterly to one another.

    And even when things go wrong, my fear is that the true villain will still be laughing in the wings.

    Liked by 1 person

  87. Addendum: there is also the point that politicians have limits on what they consider it permissible to say. These are not always based on facts. Net Zero exists within the bubble of acceptable (if not compelled) opinion, alongside other things that ornery folks would not endorse – so called culture war issues.

    The upshot of this is that even politicians who have seen the light, but who value their position and prospects above truthsaying, will be reluctant to call out Net Zero for the suicide project that it undoubtedly is.

    Liked by 1 person

  88. Jit, I think you’re saying (your first comment) that the true villains are those for whom the end (humanity’s abandoning of fossil fuels so as to avoid catastrophe) justifies the means (issuing misleading statements and reports). Is that your view? If so, why would they be laughing in the wings when things go wrong? Surely, given the overwhelming importance (for them) of Net Zero, they’d be desperately disappointed if things went wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  89. As for your second comment Jit, a perfect example is my erstwhile MP Bim Afolami. He understood well enough but valued his position and prospects too much to say so.

    Like

  90. Well, let me illustrate with a hypothetical.

    If a grid-scale blackout comes to pass, the true villain will be Net Zero. But the blame will be lodged elsewhere – an over-reliance on fossil fuels, or insufficient grid connections, or not enough ability to exercise demand management, deniers and/or nimbys blocking storage/renewables/pylon projects, selfish people not heeding requests to not charge their cars, not enough vehicle-to-grid infrastructure. There are plenty of potential scapegoats. Perhaps even climate catastrophe will be blamed, for causing an unusual juxtaposition of weather events. And some of these may have played a role in the blackout, but not the overarching one.

    Those who will eagerly gaslight us regarding the source of the problem still believe in the project’s ultimate success. But we can’t have hoi polloi coming to regard Net Zero as the problem. There will be bumps in the road, but we can’t let one such send the project into the ditch.

    Liked by 2 people

  91. Good points Jit. But I cannot see how anybody would be ‘laughing in the wings’ as I think you agree with me that, when things go wrong, it will be the result of cock-up not conspiracy.

    Like

  93. Wow. So along with many commenters at the Conservative Woman, I’m a conspiracist nutjob who is bringing genuine sceptics into disrepute!

    No, I don’t believe that. I also think it enables people to point at sceptics and say what a load of nutjobs we are.

    What would be the motivation for such a conspiracy? I see none. Its existence would inevitably have leaked into the public domain, which it hasn’t (save for the “eating insects” memes etc).

    It is far more logical to believe that the purveyors of Net Zero actually do so because they think it can and will work. They are supported by (I do not use the term lightly) liars who deliberately produce misleading statements and reports. This latter group do not consider what they do to be wrong. Rather, they are just putting a little spin on things for the greater good – the Net Zero project.

    That’s how I interpret Jit’s comment above. It’s not a very sophisticated argument though, and it’s a tired one quite frankly. It is as logical, if not more logical to presume that there is a significant element of malign intent involved in the apparently insane unilateral implementation of the allegedly ‘planet saving’ Net Zero in that the people pushing it know that it cannot work, that even if it did work, it would make bugger all difference anyway, who know also that it will cause immense damage in the process. I hesitate to ascribe a specific motive to such behaviour but it is bordering on the absurd to claim that it is not intentionally malign. But we’ve been through this before and lots of very influential people are now clamouring for high level prosecutions of criminals involved in a criminal conspiracy first hinted at by nutjob conspiracy theorists.

    I’m not sure who the ‘purveyors’ and who the ‘supporters’ of Net Zero are supposed to be but even the bare-faced lying supporters (many of whom are doing very nicely thank you – Dale Vince for example) are supposedly spreading malign disinformation ‘for the greater good’, so they’re really angels in the Devil’s disguise. My conspiracist nutjob theory sounds more logical than this.

    Like

  94. I’m with JIT in this matter. The overwhelming majority of those fearful of climate changes and supporters of measures related to achieving Net Zero are those who unquestionably accept the “science” or are prepared to believe those who proselytise for the “cause”. The rise of attribution science has made the majority of us fearful of our futures (gosh today we are being warned by our “betters” of 30o weather this week when in the past it was welcomed).

    I suspect the majority might, if pressed, actually accept that Great Britain could not, by itself, influence future climate. However Britain has stood alone before, waiting for and holding out for other countries to join in. I suspect that those pushing NZ have this expectation. Personally I have no such fantasy thoughts.

    Liked by 1 person

  95. I’m (now) in the majority:

    https://x.com/PeterSweden7/status/1805180509321925061

    Question. Do you believe that Net Zero is a scam to take away your freedom?

    I scrolled down quite a way and not one single comment saying those pushing and supporting Net Zero were doing it ‘for the greater good’ and/or because they were deludedly ‘following the science’. Many citing money as the motive, others political motivations. We could all be wrong of course. Consensus is not a reliable guide to reality. But it’s hard to argue now that the street cred of sceptics is being brought down by pesky nutjob conspiracists when a very large section – probably a majority – of the public now firmly believe that Net Zero is a scam.

    In other news, UKHSA and the Met Office have issued a yellow heat health warning for totally normal to below normal summer temperatures over the next few days. Completely normal. Nothing to see here. Absolutely no attempt whatsoever to ‘nudge’ the public into fearing summer warmth for the purposes of promoting a ‘clean energy transition’ amounting to a full blown economic and political great reset.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. Jaime, I come back to the why. What motivates politicians to instate policies that have the aim of impoverishing their people or crashing their country’s economy?

    I understand that there are a lot of hangers-on who may benefit from such policies in the short to medium run. But I don’t see how a universal consensus among the power brokers could arise whose aim is ruin. Because the little people will be affected first, but eventually the rot will reach the top.

    Like

  97. Jit,

    There are plausible theories as to motive. I won’t go into them. However, the evidence for malign intent rests not so much on exposing a motivation for the behaviour observed, but on an analysis of the nature of the behaviour observed itself. When you do that, it becomes almost impossible to conclude, knowing what we now know, knowing what they knew and what they now know, that they acted and are acting simply out of a belief that they are ‘following the science’ and ultimately doing the right thing, even if their methods leave much to be desired at times. It simply is not plausible or credible.

    Liked by 1 person

  98. Also ignoring motive, for now, this thread from Sonia Sodha is interesting in two ways for me

    So in summary: Labour are claiming to be robustly defending Equality Act protections for single-sex spaces, services & sports while adopting policy positions that would water them down. That’s dishonest. They’re only getting away with it because it’s a technical policy area.

    — https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1805191782977741104

    First, what does this say about how much we can trust a new Labour government? How soon will they seek to criminalise what we do here on Cliscep?

    Second, ours is also a ‘technical policy area’ – or it can seem so if we get bogged down in the wrong kind of detail. So Robin is partly right. But only partly.

    Like

  99. I’m sorry Jaime but what’s impossible to conclude is that the people and organisations out there who are campaigning for Net Zero or similar policies are involved in a vast malignant global conspiracy to ruin western civilisation. It’s simply not credible. No, it’s an almighty cock-up.

    Like

  100. Robin, you’re equating my statement that

    “there is a significant element of malign intent involved in the apparently insane unilateral implementation of the allegedly ‘planet saving’ Net Zero”

    to

    “the people and organisations out there who are campaigning for Net Zero or similar policies are involved in a vast malignant global conspiracy to ruin western civilisation.”

    That’s called setting up a straw man so you can then attack it.

    Like

  101. Jaime,

    As I recall, Stalin had a series of five year economic plans for industrialization and collectivization. What did success look like for him? From a human perspective, one might say it was malign. What will success look like for Starmer’s five year economic plan? Looking back I suspect it will also appear strangely inhumane. Sometimes the people have to suffer if an ideology is to succeed. That’s just tough!

    Like

  102. Jaime, I was referring to your question a few days ago: ‘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?‘ Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me – especially as you’ve said on several occasions that you believe politicians are intent on destroying Western civilisation. Do you now have some other malign intent in mind?

    Like

  103. Ah well Robin, if you’re going to start obscurely referring to previous statements made by myself, both specific and non specific, then I can’t win this argument! However, the one previous statement which you did specify still doesn’t match up to your “vast malignant global conspiracy to ruin western civilisation“. For the record, I do believe there are powerful actors out there who despise Western liberal democracies and the modern industrialised Western civilisations which we have built. Some are even openly honest about their hatred. But I don’t recall ever pinpointing a vast malignant global conspiracy.

    Like

  104. Jaime: I believe my quote was accurate. But this conspiracy vs. cock-up debate is pointless. As we’ve done before, let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that. OK?

    Like

  107. I don’t suppose we’ll see a BBC Verify hit job on this story!

    “Greens tax plans ‘fairly normal’ by European standards – Ramsay”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/czvvv9577e5o

    The Greens co-leader has been responding to claims by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the party was making “wholly unattainable” promises at the election, that cannot be delivered.

    Adrian Ramsay told Panorama’s Nick Robinson its tax plans were “fairly normal” by European standards and the same quality of heath and education services would not be achieved if “we don’t put the investment in that’s needed”.

    The pair debated the differing views of financial experts on the economic plans of the Green Party of England and Wales.

    Like

  108. “Five takeaways from Cambridgeshire election debate”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg333lml2mro

    There may have been five talking points for the BBC, but this is the rather revealing one that interests me:

    Guy Lachlan, for Reform UK, said net zero, external should be abolished because of the financial cost, something to which Kathryn Fisher, the Green Party candidate, took exception. She said the cost to the planet was extortionate and suggested it did not “really matter” what the financial cost was.

    If Ms Fisher is representative of the Green Party position, then she’s demonstrated that they have no awareness of the futility of the UK taking unilateral action, and that they don’t care how much they waste on the project.

    Like

  109. On the “cock-up vs conspiracy” theme, I wonder if it is a combination of the two, at least in part?

    The politicians are, no doubt, fed their lines by advisors and the staff of the relevant department(s). They have very little or no expertise in the technical and scientific issues which are so evident to us, nor do they have any inclination to rock the boat by entertaining any other opinions. So they go with the flow, blithely unaware that the stream is heading for Niagara. That’s the cock-up factor.

    On the other hand there is clear evidence of intent to control our lives in pursuit of net zero, as shown in Mark’s excellent dissection of the recent Energy Bill. It would be fascinating to learn exactly who was the author of the clause calling for the use of “reasonable force” (or whatever was the term) to enter premises in order to enforce regulations of the energy ratings of appliances. While that speaks of fanatical intent, I suspect it is more a blind disregard for consequences rather than a wish for malign destruction. We saw in the pandemic how the urge to over-regulate and control the populace can emerge with astonishing vigour. Maybe there is a culture within the lower tiers of government and their advisors which believes that they should be allowed to control our lives for our own good. To an outsider, that looks like a conspiracy but is perhaps proof of the old adage about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

    So we have a culture/conspiracy in our governing bodies which will have malign consequences being fronted by a regiment of Captain Cock-Ups. It’s a deadly combination.

    Liked by 2 people

  110. This comment by Sherelle Jacobs in today’s Telegraph is I believe sadly true:

    Labour’s Blob-pleasing obsession with net zero – decarbonising the grid by 2030 and banning new North Sea oil and gas – could yet prove to be the single greatest act of national self-harm this century. After all, history suggests that sustained economic growth is always underpinned by access to cheap and abundant energy.

    Although I suggest ‘UK politicians Blob-pleasing obsession …’ would be more accurate.

    Liked by 2 people

  112. Mark I don’t believe the BBC is necessarily dreaming. “Climate change ‘the most important election issue”’ can be interpreted in two ways. Straitforwardly as you have interpreted it, but also that climate change is actually the most important issue but is being overtaken and hidden by other issues – shame!

    Like

  113. Could a future opposition involve Kemi Badenoch and Rosie Duffield?

    David Tennant notoriously wants Kemi to ‘disappear’. Dawn Butler agrees.

    She’s clearly a Net Zero sceptic.

    But we have to face that another issue is more important right now.

    Labour’s Conversion Therapy Ban is in itself child abuse.

    The CTB name is entirely phony.

    Some tweets:

    https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1805613113380585496

    https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1805860347288363061

    https://x.com/Transgendertrd/status/1805718818884354329

    https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/1805712182027428310

    https://x.com/TheMistressRox/status/1805628069031408007

    https://x.com/spudsmonaghan12/status/1805719486504616397

    Like

  114. Conspiracy vs. Cockup:

    Chris Martz (a 21 year old Atmospheric Sciences major) sums it up nicely:

    It’s no coincidence; it’s all by design and I’ll tell you why.

    Hundreds of thousands of individuals’ livelihoods depend on there being a “climate crisis.” A crisis doesn’t have to exist, but a large chunk of the public has to have the perception that one does. The “climate crisis” industrial complex has become a lucrative multi-trillion dollar industry. It is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that allows the federal government to regulate energy in the name of reducing carbon emissions to “save the planet” by keeping the public alarmed over the weather. They successfully do this by laundering taxpayer funds through NSF research grants, which are then readily given to any academic with his or her hand held out to “study the problem.” The scientist is then, explicitly or implicitly, required to produce research that agrees with the pre-approved narrative. They can’t just fabricate numbers, that looks bad. But, the scientist may use statistical tricks to massage the data to produce specific outcomes or graphical curves or trends. All that is required is to ensure that we the people are alarmed. If the average person thinks that there is a huge climate problem, he or she will be okay with their taxpayer dollars being used to fund this climate research. And, to ensure that it continues, research has shifted instead from understanding the physics of the climate system to impacts on society or activities important to people.

    • “Climate change and wine growing.”

    • “Climate change and baseball”

    • “How climate change disproportionately affects minorities.”

    • “Climate change and beer.”

    • “Climate change and surfing.”

    You get the idea…

    If you can get the layperson to think his or her favorite activity is at risk due to climate change, it subconsciously gets the gullible to vote in accordance with any power-hungry politician eager to pass authoritative legislation while giving constituents the false promise of “saving the planet.” It’s a guise and a darn good one at that.

    This loop cements government control over our energy consumption, and keeps corrupt academics bankrolled by easily defrauding the public.

    That’s all it boils down to.

    https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1805843254061285844

    How is he wrong? He’s not. All one can argue is that *this part* of the climate change science and policy industry is just a small part of the whole and a non-defining part. But I think the evidence points firmly to the contrary. Climate change science and mitigation policy are now clearly an organised conspiracy to defraud the public (for political and/or financial gain) and those involved at the administrative level (not the deranged militant millenarians vandalising Stonehenge or taking a dump in Sunak’s private lake of course) must necessarily act with malign intent.

    Liked by 1 person

  115. Jaime: so you must believe therefore that Ed Miliband’s determination to achieve ‘clean’ electricity by 2030 is motivated, not by a foolish belief that it’s doable and will reduce bills, but by a malign intent to defraud the public. Interesting.

    Like

  116. Robin: Milibrain must know that it is not doable. Even being thick as a brick sandwiched between two short planks, he must have been exposed to data and evidence which completely contradicts the practical and economic feasibility of completely decarbonising the entire national grid in the next 6 years. ‘Foolish belief’ doesn’t cover it. He’s definitely a joker, but the joke is on us:

    https://x.com/jontheshepherd/status/1696048804548731391

    Liked by 1 person

  117. On conspiracy v social delusion – and each of us taking responsibility for our part in the latter

    Great thread on how to reflect on one’s role in the Covid hysteria at the start. (Rather than papering it over, justifying it, or blaming puppeteers “who did this to me.”)

    — https://x.com/MarkChangizi/status/1624421928000708610

    It is a very good thread by Daniel Hadas starting

    I admire those who, from the start, rejected and resisted every aspect of the Covid regime.

    But I cannot claim to be one of them. At its inception, I supported the spring 2020 UK lockdown.

    Hindsight distorts, but still, I shall try to recall some reasons for my support.

    For Changizi conspiracism is a cop-out. But I’d still say Covid is different from Climate.

    Like

  121. Jaime: Miliband’s and Starmer’s ‘clean electricity by 2030’ plan will go very wrong quite soon. When it does and consumer bills keep rising they’ll look extremely foolish in the eyes of ordinary people already struggling to pay their bills, many of whom will be very angry. Yet you believe they know this will happen and, because of malign intent, it’s the outcome they are expecting and intending. Interesting.

    Like

  122. Robin,

    Your argument hinges upon how soon is ‘quite soon’ and whether or not Starmer and Miliband will regret looking foolish in the eyes of the public. That particular horse has already bolted for Milibrain. Show me someone who takes him seriously! Starmer is not far behind. But you think they are concerned about looking even more foolish if they have to backtrack very quickly on Net Zero? I doubt it. Their main concern will be to keep the Net Zero project afloat for the duration of Labour’s term by juggling skittles in the air. The catastrophic (but very profitable) end will justify the means and if Milibrain ends up looking like even more of a jerk in a few years time – as opposed to a malignant presence at the heart of government – then that’s no big deal.

    Like

  123. Oh, wait, now Milibrain is deferring to the authority of ace pandemic modeller and expert epidemiologist and immunologist Patrick Vallance in order to claim that filthy ‘clean energy’ will lower our bills and make us more secure:

    Patrick Vallance has said that we need to end the era of high energy bills and energy insecurity by investing in clean homegrown power The Labour Party agrees. That is why we have a plan to make Britain a clean energy superpower, so we can cut bills and make our country secure.

    https://x.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1805896809866207300

    Is this really just ocean-going idiocy?

    Like

  124. ‘Is this really just ocean-going idiocy?‘

    Yes.

    I agree with Ben Pile in his article in Today’s Daily Sceptic (see my post just now on the ‘Court Again’ thread) that our MPs are simply ‘clueless’. Yet you presumably think for example that, when my then MP Peter Lilley voted against the 2008 Climate Change Act, he was just an innocent victim who didn’t understand that the actions of his fellow MPs were based on malign intent. Interesting.

    Like

  125. Robin: I took the liberty of adding two links to your most recent comment. Because I think Ben’s article is so important and that’s how a wiki should work. (We’re not a wiki but we kinda tend towards one in certain ways, which is a strength, I think.)

    Like

  126. Robin, I am gratified that you find your analysis of my comments so interesting. Unfortunately, I am not able to read most of the Ben Pile DS article because I’m not a paid subscriber. I cannot comment therefore on the validity of the claim that Ben Pile thinks there is an absence of malice and an abundance of clueless stupidity on the part of our politicians re. Net Zero. But this was not my specific claim anyway. I have claimed that there is a significant element of malign intent on the part of ALL actors pushing the ‘climate crisis’ and Net Zero policy response – including politicians. This does not mean that there are not some clueless idiot politicians just surfing the wave of ridiculous Green utopian optimism. Doubtless there are, but I do not think that Milibad ranks among them – despite the fact that he is apparently thick as a brick sandwiched between two short planks.

    Like

  127. Sorry to go back two days but this to Jaime by John R resonated:

    As I recall, Stalin had a series of five year economic plans for industrialization and collectivization. What did success look like for him? From a human perspective, one might say it was malign. What will success look like for Starmer’s five year economic plan? Looking back I suspect it will also appear strangely inhumane. Sometimes the people have to suffer if an ideology is to succeed. That’s just tough!

    So is Starmer Stalin? Lenin? Trotsky? Or merely Nikolay Chkheidze?

    Or, as Tory peer Danny Finkelstein puts it in the Times today:

    Starmer is bright and extremely diligent and often finds that evidence and reality push him away from his ideological starting point. As director of public prosecutions he couldn’t maintain the purist stance of the human rights lawyer acting for the defence. The advocate for activists complaining about police abuse came to appreciate the difficulties of policing. The defendant’s friend became acquainted with the experiences of victims.

    In the same way, the man who ran as the unity candidate for the Labour leadership — positioning himself between the Corbynites and the right of the party — came to see that this position was impossible and that the policy of the Corbynites was irresponsible.

    These conclusions do not come to him naturally. But they still do come to him. I think we can expect a prime minister who sometimes struggles between his immediate reaction, his idealistic view of himself and the dictates of reality. But as long as we don’t mind too much that he takes his time and sometimes gives a muddled first response, he will often get there in the end.

    “the dictates of reality”

    That would be nice, Net Zero wise. (And trans ideology wise, ‘next pandemic’ wise and a whole lot of other wises.)

    But John’s certainly right about how inhumane ideology can turn out to be.

    And it only needed one cunning and vindictive Koba to emerge from the many radical conspirators on the left (and they were) for the inhumanity to become entrenched and extreme over many more than five years.

    Liked by 2 people

  128. If someone (anyone) lies to you and they know they are lying and you know that they are lying, the obvious question to ask is: why are they lying? Firstly, the fact that they ARE lying rules out incompetence or stupidity. So are they lying ‘for the greater good’ (of humanity/the nation/the planet)? Demonstrably false in the case of unilateral Net Zero: our efforts will not, cannot save humanity or the planet and they will demonstrably make life worse, much worse for the populace on which they are imposed. So their lies are not ‘good lies’. They must then be obsessive compulsive lies or bad (malign) lies, executed with a purpose and intent which involves very considerable known collateral or wholly intentional damage and harm to those being lied to.

    Like

  129. Jaime: I was referring to Ben’s concluding sentence:

    ‘The Climate Change Act, passed by so many clueless MPs, will do damage far beyond Horse Hill.‘

    I referred to Peter Lilley because I was in touch with him in 2008 and am still in touch with him today. In my opinion he’s an intelligent person who believed in 2008 that his fellow MPs were acting as they did because of ignorance and foolishness. I don’t for a moment think that in reality he was naively unaware that their true motivation was malicious intent. Nor do I think that’s his view today. No doubt you believe he’s wrong about this – and of course you’re entitled to that opinion.

    PS: I don’t understand why you decided to raise this again this morning. May I suggest (again) that we agree to disagree about it?

    Like

  130. Richard: of course it’s true that Starmer’s policies may well turn out to have an inhumane effect. But if so, that would not be because, as Jaime seems to believe, he was motivated by malign intent from the offset – on the contrary. Our best hope, re Net Zero, must be that he faces up to ‘the dictates of reality’. And does so soon.

    Like

  131. Jaime; your earlier post quoting Mart recalls the comment by Macauley (I think) to the effect that the way to gain and retain political power is for the public to be scared by a series of hobgoblins for which the politician claims to have the remedy.

    Liked by 1 person

  132. Hey guys,

    I hope you all understand that the only reason you have doubts about Net Zero is because none of you have even a basic understanding of politics and you all suffer from nationalistic narcissism. I know that this is true because scientists have shown it.

    “When the sun goes down: low political knowledge and high national narcissism predict climate change conspiracy beliefs”

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2023.2237176

    You think you are participants in a debate, but you are not. You are just lab rats in someone’s experiment into the causes of cognitive impairment.

    Liked by 4 people

  133. Robin: There’s a reason I talked about a “cunning and vindictive Koba”. As Lenin grew frail I doubt Joseph Vissarionovich was thinking “I intend to murder tens of millions of kulaks and other counter-revolutionaries; it’s the price we have to pay.” But he was thinking “I can see how to stab Trotsky in the back and achieve supreme power, before the others realise.” The others were conspirators too, just not such good ones.

    Labour I think has fallen prey, both locally and nationally, to many kinds of ideologues and conspirators, including islamist and antisemitic ones – two areas Finkelstein, interestingly, doesn’t mention. Norman Fenton would I’m sure highlight both areas, if he had the same kind of platform. He is of course a climate sceptic (having broken free of BBC NDAs from March 2015) and recently pointed on X to a lengthy article The Woke Jihad by Abe Greenwald which, though primarily about the States, doesn’t fill me with a lot of warm fuzzy feelings about our future either. (Climate only gets a passing mention through the Pritzkers indirectly funding the Climate Justice Alliance. But there’s so much else to cover.)

    So, with such ideology and fairly covert funding at play, malign intent can develop into something far worse. On the other hand, Starmer may be one of the good guys and outwit all the other potential malignancies. When I say “Good luck with that” I mean it.

    Liked by 1 person

  134. Mencken! From Wikiquote:

    Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

    Also this, pertinent here:

    The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

    Liked by 2 people

  135. John,

    I’m not prepared to pay the £39 they expect me to shell out in order to read the full paper, but the abstract is depressing enough. I can’t take such people seriously, and to be honest I wonder if they take themselves seriously. Who pays them for this stuff and why?

    Like

  136. Jit, I’m wondering how a government can be both dishonest and insane.

    Robin, I didn’t refer to Martz specifically in order to renew our debate here, just to further point out the considerable accumulating evidence for malign intent on the part of those promoting Net Zero and the existence of a ‘climate crisis’. But it’s an issue that is not going to go away and I’m sure we will again cross swords over it. Did Lilley believe that his fellow Parliamentarians were acting in good faith by passing CCA 2008? Almost certainly. Was he correct? He may well have been. But I would question how this legislation came to be put before Parliament in the first place? The answer is intense Green lobbying behind the scenes. In 2008, many MPs might have been blind-sided by the ‘save the planet’ ideology but the damage done to British industry and the British economy in the interval between 2008 and 2019, when Net Zero was just waived through Parliament with a half hour ‘debate’ and no impact assessment or statement is inexcusable. Skidmore was the architect behind that anti-democratic coup and MPs just let him get away with it.

    Liked by 1 person

  137. Richard, Jaimie,

    The reason why I dared to make Stalin allusions is because the rhetoric coming from the Labour Party is making me a little uneasy. Economic growth is being presented as the answer to everything, and so it has to be economic growth at all costs. So it’s just tough if anyone feels their personal rights and interests are being trodden on by the juggernaut of progress. No more nimbyism or moaning about the effects on the poor. And certainly no more talk about reality. Stalin didn’t get to be where he got by worrying about anyone else’s concept of truth or reality.

    I think the point I am making here is that zealotry and malignance tend to be bedfellows and people with big ideas can be remarkably callous when it comes to the welfare of the little people. And saving the planet is a very, very big idea.

    I’ll say no more because I’ve just remembered I know nothing about politics and I’m just a narcissistic nationalist.

    Liked by 4 people

  139. Jaime: I agree with everything you say about the passage of the CCA. But it doesn’t mean that the MPs involved were motivated by malicious intent.

    Like

  141. John:

    I think the point I am making here is that zealotry and malignance tend to be bedfellows and people with big ideas can be remarkably callous when it comes to the welfare of the little people. And saving the planet is a very, very big idea.

    Absolutely. Another thing to note is that the most harmful of conspirators in history were major conspiracists. It was, they reasoned, necessary to conspire themselves because, after all, they were up against this massive, evil, global conspiracy, equal and opposite to the greatness of their own big idea.

    Martin Amis gave the mocking nicknames little moustache and big moustache to the most obvious examples of this come 1933. The irony was that big moustache’s paranoia about plots against himself, even among his closest collaborators, was far worse than his enemy-come-ally in Germany. Yet in 1941 Stalin ignored all the warnings from his intelligence services that Hitler was about to betray Molotov-Ribbentrop and invade. Too trusting by far.

    Most conspiracy theorists are ridiculous and pretty harmless. Those two not so much.

    Those on the Left today? And their strangely copious billionaire funders? One could say the jury’s out on that. But that reminder of expanding lawfare just makes me the more uneasy.

    Liked by 2 people

  142. I try not to impute malign intentions to anyone, and feel that most egregious mistakes are the result of stupidity, over-enthusiasm, a failure to contemplate down-sides, or possibly all three.

    However, two thoughts might change my mind. Climate alarmists are quick to impute malign intentions on those who disagree with them. Perhaps they are projecting, perhaps they doth protest too much?

    Secondly, when looking back at historical events, we readily accept malign intentions on the part of people in the past – so why do we find it so hard to believe about people today, when today will be tomorrow’s history?

    Liked by 2 people

  143. PM today, and Bridget Phillipson and Andrew Mitchell were challenged by Evan Davis over how their parties would deal with the black hole in the tax take thanks to the replacement of ICE cars by EVs and the concomitant loss of fuel duty. Hardly has such an incoherent set of answers been proffered. They had no clue.

    Here from 13:40 if you are in possession of the magical ticket.

    Like

  144. Mark – re your comment “Who pays them for this stuff and why?” on John’s comment/link.

    From John’s 1st link we learn, partial quote –

    “Methods: This hypothesis was tested in a two-wave study conducted among Polish participants (N = 558). Results: We found negative effect of political knowledge on climate change conspiracy beliefs.”

    Who pays – “Acknowledgments – This work was supported by the by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [grant number DIALOG 0013/2019; financing period: 2019-2021] awarded to Marta Marchlewska, PhD.”

    From John’s 2nd link we learn, partial quote –

    “The authors then noted, “individuals high in collective narcissism are motivated to show everyone that their ingroup does not succumb to pressure from other groups and international organizations,” and suggested that this attitude could foster belief in climate change conspiracy theories. To test their hypothesis, Michalski’s team conducted a study involving 558 Polish participants (272 females, 286 males) who were aged 18-25, where data was collected at two time points six months apart.“We decided to focus on young people because understanding why they endorse climate-related conspiracy beliefs is important due to the long-term social change potential they have. Furthermore, this age group has been actively engaged in various climate change-related social activities and had a significant impact on the public awareness of the environmental crisis,” the researchers explained.”

    So Poland centred research data.

    Like

  145. Not content with yesterday giving us this headline – “Climate change ‘the most important election issue’” – today the BBC follows it up with this:

    “Voters call for action on climate change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw99y2qnzz7o

    But do they? Some voters undoubtedly do, and I suppose the BBC could justify its headline so long as just two voters make such a call, but I think it’s highly disingenuous to use such a headline, given that if you read the article you find this:

    BBC research shows climate change is only in the top 10 issues for voters aged under 34.

    Liked by 2 people

  146. Well, I’m going to have another go at biased BBC reporting. Before I do, I must make it clear that I am not a Farage supporter and that I will not be voting Reform in the general election. Compare this:

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/28/racist-reform-activist-filmed-by-channel-4-is-an-actor/

    with this:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxq2q1ld4jo

    and this:

    “Farage challenged over canvasser’s racist slurs”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxq82xwkl1o

    The two BBC pieces are about the Question time special with Farage and one of the Green Party co-leaders. Despite the fact that both parties have candidates and alleged activists making unpleasant and extremist comments, the headlines are all about Farage. And despite the fact that the big story is about an actor who may or may not be a Reform supporter/activist and who may or may not have been acting (I have no idea which version of the story is true), the BBC isn’t much interested in finding out whether the story is (as Farage alleges) a scam against Reform, or whether the individual concerned really is a Reform Party supporter. Compare and contrast Isabel Oakeshott’s careful and cautious interview in which she suggests that there may be more to the comments than Channel 4 suggested, but insists that she doesn’t know, with the BBC’s dismissive attitude:

    Mr Parker was approached by the BBC about Mr Farage’s remarks but did not want to comment.

    Channel 4 News said it stood by its “rigorous and duly impartial journalism” adding that it met Mr Parker for the first time at Reform UK party headquarters and had not paid him any money.

    Oh right, that’s settled, then! No need for BBC Verify on this story, it appears. As I have said before (and will no doubt say again) BBC Verify is a weapon deployed by the BBC to take down stories and narratives it doesn’t like. There is no chance of it being deployed against a story that it loves.

    Meanwhile, they’re not much interested in Green extremist candidates:

    Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay was also asked about comments made by some of his candidates in relation to the conflict in Gaza, including one who compared Hamas to French resistance fighters in World War Two.

    Mr Ramsay said he didn’t support those views adding that any concerns would be “properly investigated through the right channels in the party” – saying that those channels were separate from the leadership.

    “Sadly all parties have had candidates who were selected in this election who have no longer gone forward,” he said.

    That’s all right then. Nothing to see here. Move along, now.

    Liked by 1 person

  147. “Reform Reports Channel 4 to Police for “Electoral Interference” Over “Planted” Racist Activist – the Activist Says He is “Glad” and “The Truth Will Come Out in the Papers””

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/29/reform-reports-channel-4-to-police-for-electoral-interference-over-planted-racist-activist-the-activist-says-he-is-glad-and-the-truth-will-come-out-in-the-papers/

    As above, I have no idea what the truth of the story is, but I would like to get to the bottom of it one way or the other. It seems the BBC isn’t interested, though. I may have missed it, but I can’t find the BBC reporting anywhere the story that Reform has reported Channel 4 to the police and to the Electoral Commission. If they have reported on it, then it certainly isn’t with anything like the prominence given to the original story.

    Like

  148. Mark,

    It’s not surprising at all that the BBC are not reporting on it, being part of the same apparent media conspiracy to discredit and aggressively hold to account Reform, and reform only, in this election run-up. They packed the Question Time audience with hand-picked activist ‘members of the public’ and set them upon Farage like a pack of rabid dogs, literally. Personally, I think the BBC are also guilty of electoral interference, which is a criminal act. They should certainly be reported to Ofcom for their atrociously biased QT – for what use that is, because Ofcom themselves are controlled by rabid lefties too.

    Like

  149. Two points:-

    1. While the climate/energy policies of Ed Miliband alarm and irritate me greatly, I do not think that he is unintelligent in the usual cognitive sense, given his educational qualifications:- “In 1989, Miliband gained four A Levels—in Mathematics (A), English (A), Further Mathematics (B) and Physics (B)—and then read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.” However, he lives and breathes in the Westminster bubble where he is surrounded by on-message SPADs who, I surmise, act as both a very effective echo chamber and a filter against in coming wrong-think.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband
    2. The climate/energy issue (and its enormous implications via Net Zero) is clearly difficult for even professional political scientists to grasp. In their book on “The Blunders of our Governments” [One World, revised and updated 2020] , authors King and Crewe (both at one time at Essex University) relegate the CCA to a footnote! At page 471, note 38, they quote John Kay in the Financial Times, “Kay notes two other pieces of New Labour legislation … were equally vacuous: the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Child Poverty Act 2010. Both set out (undoubtedly laudable) targets, aims and aspirations but were scarcely “law” in any meaningful sense of the word.” This astonishing comment is surely one reason why, as Richard observed the other day, the conventional Left has gone badly astray in recent years. I would add that, from my perspective, the conventional Right has also gone badly astray from its traditional roots as we are probably about to see in Thursday’s general election. Brace for impact. Regards, John C.

    Liked by 2 people

  150. Apologies, John C,

    I have just found your two identical posts in spam. Thanks for persisting. I have set one of them free.

    Like

  152. Clearly beyond the pale….

    “At least 30 Reform candidates have cast doubt on human-induced global heating

    Exclusive: Analysis of social media posts, including by candidates projected to win seats, finds multiple mentions of ‘hoaxes’ and ‘the Illuminati’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/01/at-least-30-reform-candidates-have-cast-doubt-on-human-induced-global-heating

    At least 30 Reform UK candidates have posted material or made statements that cast doubt on the validity of human-induced global heating, a Guardian analysis can reveal.

    A suite of the party’s prospective parliamentary candidates have publicly cast doubt on the existence of the emission-caused climate crisis.

    Their social media posts often claim that warnings of anthropogenic warming are a “hoax” or “scam”, and many include conspiracy theories about how the “climate change narrative” can be attributed to the World Economic Forum, “globalist elites” or “the Illuminati”.

    Analysis of Reform candidates’ social media profiles for the Guardian has shown that, over he last two years, more than two dozen have shared material that denies human-induced warming. Some of the candidates sharing these messages are projected to win in their constituencies.…[My emphasis]. OMG!

    Liked by 2 people

  153. Ben Pile on X with graph (omitted here)

    It’s only a footnote, of course, but a terrible night for the French greens.

    It’s amazing how poorly European (incl. UK) green parties have polled for the last half century, yet somehow green ideology became so dominant.

    — https://x.com/clim8resistance/status/1807675332645789745

    A puzzle not just about the next four days but the last half century. For me not just the ‘madness of crowds’ but the wisdom of crowds too. And some dark anti-democratic forces.

    A useful time-frame to think about post 4th July in the UK.

    Liked by 1 person

  154. The World at One today, and a revealing interview with Steve Reed, Labour’s shadow Environment Secretary. It follows the revelations in The Times yesterday that our new government plans to build new houses on the green belt. Reed pointed out that there were disused petrol stations in the green belt that no-one would be against building on. [Sarah Montague not making the obvious point that a hundred thousand homes do not fit into the footprint of a few disused petrol stations and “car parks” (the other feature of the “grey belt” he named.]

    Reed then goes on to say that folks will have to suck up the pylons sprouting up around them.

    From 13.24 here.

    Liked by 1 person

  155. Labour, the party whose one great government, introduced our planning regime, resolved to tear it up. Trashing the planet in order to “save” it. I hold them in utter contempt.

    Like

  156. “What the manifestos say about energy: Conservative Party”

    https://watt-logic.com/2024/06/30/what-the-manifestos-say-about-energy-conservative-party/

    Overall the Conservative Party’s claim to be pragmatic in relation to energy policy does stack up. There are still problems, notably the belief that renewables are cheap, that the EPC should be used more widely, and the commitment to the price cap.

    But the focus on energy security is welcome, as is the desire to increase the democratic mandate for net zero. The problem is that the Party has had almost a decade in which it could have enacted these policies, but seems to have only recently realised their necessity. Perhaps they could argue that they are listening to voter concerns that have only recently become apparent. Unfortunately at this point the electorate has stopped listening to them. They are unlikely to get the chance to put right their mistakes.

    “What the manifestos say about energy: Labour Party”

    https://watt-logic.com/2024/07/01/what-the-manifestos-say-about-energy-labour-party/

    There is widespread disbelief within the energy industry that Labour’s plan is achievable, but its huge lead in the polls and widespread dis-satisfaction with the incumbent Conservative Party means it is likely to win a large majority in the new Parliament. Then it will discover that governing parties must make trade-offs that opposition parties have the luxury of ignoring. In opposition, a party is free to criticise every policy and claim it will do things better, and it can make these claims across every aspect of public life.

    Like

  157. “What the manifestos say about energy: Liberal Democrats”

    https://watt-logic.com/2024/07/02/what-the-manifestos-say-about-energy-liberal-democrats/

    There is a long list of aspirations all of which are easy to say, but not easy to do, and there is no detail about how these things will be achieved. Many of the proposals would create significant additional costs for businesses, particularly in relation to creating a “duty of care for the environment”. A CBAM would certainly be inflationary, and it remains to be seen how strong the EU’s commitment to its own scheme will be once those effects begin to materialise.

    At the same time as complaining about the impact of energy costs, the Lib Dems are proposing a great many policies that would drive costs higher. They hope that new technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture will save the day, but progress, particularly on the latter, does not support these ambitions.

    The Liberal Democrat energy policy is fanciful, so it’s just as well the party has little chance of entering government. There is little understanding of the realities of the energy markets and the global supply chains supporting them. There is a naïve belief that some rich “bad guys” such as oil companies and large energy suppliers can somehow be forced to pay so that households in particular can benefit from low prices when buying energy and higher prices when selling it. Somehow these companies will avoid passing on the associated additional costs to their customers, and policies such as the CBAM will magically not be inflationary.

    The Liberal Democrat manifesto lacks credibility in its energy policies – the magical thinking set out in its pages has no place in government. Which may be why Ed Davey is spending his time throwing himself off things, because that is also my inclination having read this manifesto.

    Liked by 1 person

  161. This. Unbelievable. Labour could have put anything in their manifesto. It hardly matters. Democracy in the UK has been reduced to a knee-jerk reaction by voters to kick out the incumbent government at any cost and get change (any change). This is insane.

    We asked Labour voters to tell us in their own words the main reason they are backing the party.

    For the largest number by far the key motivation is ousting the Conservatives

    Top 5 reasons

    Get the Tories out: 48%

    Country needs a change: 13%

    Agree with their policies: 5%

    To improve NHS: 4%

    Best-liked party with a change of winning: 4%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1808458226142196083

    Liked by 4 people

  162. Yes, Jaime, I have had the feeling for some years that the electorate is really fed up with the political class because the latter does what it wants to do rather than what the electorate wants (e.g. much reduced immigration, really leaving the EU, respect for the nation state and its longstanding inhabitants etc.). Consequently the electorate thrashes around from election to election seeking effective change whereas they are offered essentially more of the same old, same old.

    This disconnect between voters and MPs was discussed by Eatwell & Goodwin in their book on National Populism in 2018. They highlighted their 4 Ds: distrust, destruction, deprivation and de-alignment. I added a 5th, 6th and 7th D: Don’t Do Dumb Things to Your Electorate – but they carried on regardless, perhaps because on so many issues we have the Principality form of government rather than the Rebublican form … let Machiavelli explain via Dr David McGrogan:-

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/01/why-the-labour-party-will-win/

    Regards, John C.

    Liked by 3 people

  163. Discussion of the policy of Net Zero at the UnHerd unofficial hustings event (Net Zero from 1:10 if the link doesn’t take you to that timestamp):

    Liked by 1 person

  164. Jaime:

    Labour could have put anything in their manifesto. It hardly matters.

    Agreed. Voting as an emotional spasm, as Peter Hitchens puts it. Which brings me to:

    Jit: Thanks for posting that. The time-coding worked perfectly (for me, on my browser, op sys, yada yada). Hitchens has been saying endlessly on X that this was the only real debate in this general election campaign. (He does annoy me, quite often, by the way. So I didn’t watch it.) But now I’m glad I took in the last part, due to your good offices. Net Zero is a key part of the radicalism that Hitchens is warning about. But it is hard to separate the (manifesto revealed) part from the (not so revealed) whole. Then grasp the whole nettle. All the best, everyone.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.