New PM’s Right Hand Man – Britain’s “unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm, the Climate Change Act
By Paul Homewood
Does Theresa May’s abolition of DECC actually mean we will see a change in climate policy? Or is it just a way to save money and make space for Liam Fox’s new Trade Dept?
One clue that may give us hope is that the new PM’s right hand man and key advisor is a guy called Nick Timothy, who has made his view on the Climate Change Act crystal clear only recently.
The GWPF report:
Nick Timothy is Theresa May’s right-hand man and a key adviser. In April he wrote a hard-hitting attack on Britain’s “unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm – or rather, the act of harm inflicted upon industrial Britain by Parliament – that was the Climate Change Act.”
Nick Timothy on Britain’s steel crisis and the Climate Change Act
[…] It is a bad habit of mine to shout at politicians being interviewed on the radio in the mornings, but last Tuesday – the day Tata Steel was due to decide the future of the Port Talbot steel plant – I read a column that enraged me. In his Financial Times column, Janan Ganesh argued that the people who lose out from globalisation, those who are forced out of work or find their wages undercut, should simply be ignored by the Government. “Rich democracies may have to live with a caucus of permanently aggrieved voters amounting to a quarter or a third of the whole,” he argued. “A seething minority is still a minority.”
Writing off a third of our entire population might seem extreme, but it is typical of the political and media classes who know little of life beyond the Circle Line, the Underground route that marks the boundaries of London’s wealthy centre. These elitists propound a philosophy of international liberalism that benefits the wealthy but often undermines the prosperity of many of their fellow citizens. They can be found in each of the major political parties, the top ranks of the civil service and, of course, in the comment pages of the Financial Times. […]
Either way, our passivity in response to China’s trade policy is not the inevitable result of globalisation but a deliberate decision taken by the Government. And the same can be said about Britain’s lack of a long-term industrial strategy. Given that ministers say that steel is a “strategically important sector”, it is striking that there is no strategy in place to promote and protect it. Thanks to Government policy, big infrastructure projects use not British steel, but foreign imports. Thanks to the Climate Change Act – legislation not imposed on Britain by uncontrollable forces but introduced by Labour and supported by all political parties – wholesale electricity prices for British industry are twice those paid by their EU competitors.
One might argue that steel is not a strategically-important industry for Britain and it does not merit special support. But that is not what ministers say. And it does not explain the unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm – or rather, the act of harm inflicted upon industrial Britain by Parliament – that was the Climate Change Act.…
The PM has a lot of things on her plate to worry about, without adding the Climate Change Act to it. In any event, Parliamentary numbers simply don’t add up if she attempted to do anything drastic about it.
Nevertheless, there may just be a gleam of hope that, with the scrapping of DECC, we have turned a corner.