What’s the real distance between Sunak and Starmer on climate?
June 13, 2024
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
.
For once Justin Rowlatt gets it right!
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp335p7x315o
He comes to the conclusion there is none!
.
Of course, with this being Justin Rowlatt, he then gets silly again. He apparently believes Ed Miliband can alter the world’s weather!
.
What he refuses to tell readers is that all three major parties agreed to push the same climate agenda years ago, when Cameron was PM.
There was never any democratic consent to this.
That is the real scandal that the BBC should be reporting on.
32 Comments
leave one →
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
To my knowledge, the Climate Change Act 2008 and Net Zero were never in any Labour or Conservative manifesto, and so have been imposed on the citizens of the UK without any democratic consent. Given the make up of parliament and its subserviance to the UN/WEF it is no wonder the country is in a total mess and facing economic ruin.
It also says on the website “BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. If that’s the best the BBC can do, the rest must be truly awful.
Journalism, in the main, is just left wing propoganda drivel – written by people benefitting, or people who simply have no idea how empirical science works
Yes, Phillip, I saw your comment on a DT thread where someone was trying to claim that the CCA was the law of the land and couldn’t be broken. Glad you put him right, though I bet he still believes what he wrote.
Re: my comment above. Of course the CCA was passed in Parliament….I was thinking of the other nonsense that came from the CCC. Sorry.
Not only no democratic consent, but it flew through Parliament neglected of any scrutiny by the vast majority of MPs who know doubt believe higher taxes can change the weather – idiots, the lot – the CCC have been found fabricating facts and figures to support net zero, which according to GWPF estimates, will cost £3Tn and rising, that’s £100k per household and rising by 2050
When challenged the Tories have claimed that Net Zero was in the 2019 manifesto and therefore was supported by the voters that elected them – probably comprising of around 30% of the electorate – although everyone was really focused on Brexit and keeping Corbyn out of government. Life is too short to check the claim but you can be certain that any mention of Net Zero came without any costings let alone a cost-benefit analysis.
I found this document which is a 71 page annex comprising a giant table of the 2019 pledges with review of where the Tories were at in 2021.
annex-conservative-manifesto-half-time-analysis.pdf (instituteforgovernment.org.uk)
Climate is mentioned 7 times, mostly nature and planting trees. We fin Net Zero as an entry on page 52:
Target: Net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050:
Underway: The government published its net zero strategy in October 2021 and the Climate Change Committee, an independent statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008, says the ambitions “align to the UK’s emissions targets of Net Zero by 2050”.408,409 However, the plan was short on detail in areas including agriculture. Many policies are still to be developed and departments need to develop delivery plans. And the CCC thinks more funding will be required in areas including housing.
We can all be forgiven for not getting to page 52 of the table and remembering about Net Zero.
It was in the manifesto, but claiming a vote for the Tories was a vote for everything in the manifesto is absurd. People vote for the party that most closely matches what they want – I doubt if anybody in the UK agrees with 100% of what the party they vote for promises. In the last 30 years, I reckon 20% is the maximum for me!
Labour did say in 2005 manifesto
“We have reformed our energy markets to make them open and competitive. And we are a leading force in the campaign to make Europe’s energy markets the same. Our wider energy policy has created a framework that places the challenge of climate change – as well as the need to achieve security of supply – at the heart of our energy policy. We have a major programme to promote renewable energy, as part of a strategy of having a mix of energy sources from nuclear power stations to clean coal to micro-generators”
From this vision flowed the 2008 Act first seeing the light of day in 2006 Queens Speech but it was a big leap to impose legally binding requirements which wasn’t implicit in the manifesto.
Funny how March and May were record cold months in NZ?
I’m delighted that at last there’s a political party which is sceptical about the climate hoax. Happily, Reform UK chimes with my other heresies such as free market capitalism, personal responsibility, and living within one’s means as individuals and as a nation. Labour is without doubt about to gain power, but my eyes are on the next election in 2029. By that time, I hope and pray, the need for rational government will have become obvious to Joe Public.
An excellent promotion of the Reform Party.
So when I vote in July, I now have two options: Reform or ‘none of the above’.
Correct, indeed Reform are the only right wing Conservative Party running and my god, do we need them to save Britain from more far left lunacy
Nowhere do they actually repudiate the non-existent climate crisis, but that’s probably to avoid a pile-on. They do repudiate Net Zero, seemingly on cost grounds, not science or its impossibility. But all that is irrelevant since their proposals sweep it all away anyway:
Scrap Net Zero and related subsidies.
Scrap annual £10bn renewable subsidies.
Cheap secure energy – licences to fast track North Sea Gas and Oil, and Shales gas test sites.
Cleaner energy from new technology – inc. SMRs and Combined Cycle Gas turbines.
But at my age five years seems an awfully long time to have to wait.
He apparently believes Ed Miliband can alter the world’s weather!
If Ed Miliband said that, it must be true 🤣
I think Minibrain has borrowed Sooty’s magic wand so, of course, he can do anything.
Miliband , anyone ?
No, he is to energy, what Stalin was to peaceful existence
Well, MONR, your right to vote as you see fit is in my eyes sacred. In my constituency there is a candidate for a party which features Arthur Scargill as one of its idols. Far from challenging their right to stand for election I celebrate such diversity. Were they to succeed – locally or even nationally – I would accept the result. There’s a maxim by Voltaire which nails this point.
I wish you’d give fair warning of headlines like that, Paul: ….Rowlatt is right…! I nearly choked on my coffee!
There is net zero difference between WEF socialist Sunak and WEF socialist Starmer – the only slight chink is the timeframe they have for delivering the most idiotic scam, based on the globalist AGW hoax – for supposed intelligent men, they are naively being led by left wing quangos, advisors and activists, with no critical analysis of whether net zero is doable, or even needed – the WEF are heavily behind net zero, as are globalist billionaires, because in essence, it’s a transfer of wealth from the masses to the elites and that’s all it’s about – money & regression of the many, to benefit the few
It’s been obvious for ages that there’s no practical difference between the main parties and the distance between them and JSO is rangers and timing, hence the lukewarm challenges to them. Nothing will change until somebody has the balls to challenge the fundamentals.
The green loonies are losing their credibility, I have seen little from “Just Stop Oil” on the MSM, other than 2 old biddies attacking the Magna Carta and letting off orange powder at the recent society wedding.
It just wish Sunak had dragged the election out to January next year, a few Winter power cuts would have sealed the fate of “Net Zero”.
So Reform is the only hope, but 4 years of Labour is going to be rather a painful time..
Rowlatt laments “This growing distance between the Conservative and Labour parties is causing deep anxiety in environmental circles.”, so singularly fails to understand that is what is supposed to be the case, that parties have *different* policies to enable us to choose between distinct positions. That all the main parties effectively have, for some unfathomable reason, the same net zero policies is the real concern. He wants environmental dictatorship, which is the real danger.
How very sad that at most 10% of the population aren’t getting g everything they want. Entitled parasites.
The BBC really is getting into full blown indoctrination of the kids with this and the associated articles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/cw889nv1g30o
Go on, try and comment on the article and let me know what happens!!!!!!!
Ray,
Comments are now closed. I guess they were allowed accidentally and the situation is now corrected.
Sorry to have been a bit cryptic. When you register to comment on the BBC website you are obliged to declare whether you are over or under 18. Having declared over 18 you are expressly not allowed to comment on articles aimed at young people…but young people are allowed to comment on adult articles. Ageist or what!
They are equidistant.
Any ‘disagreements’ on climate policy between the main parties are performative bluster, designed to distract supporters into spurious argument and overlook the fact there’s only one course of policy allowed; the one they ALL agree on.
Look at Sunak’s 2035 ICE ban extension. It got MSM coverage, caused a big row and then was exposed as irrelevant because manufacturers still had to comply with various EV sales percentages in the years 2020-35. Thus the ‘ban’ was exposed as irrelevant.
It’s a perfect example of how the Conservatives have lied and lied to their own supporters, which is why they’re about to get thrown out of office.
Don’t expect them to have worked out the answers. They will have had some contact with DESNZ who authorised Clare Coutinho to mention the idea of keeping CCGT going after it had been pointed out to her and them by Katyryn Porter and doubtless many others that there would be no viable system without.
The next shock for Labour will be finding out the truth of Baroness Brown’s claim that the AR6 strike prices are still too low to encourage sufficient investment in wind. Rapidly followed by the Capacity Market failure to procure adequate capacity.
That is when they will start to “shape markets” (TM Labour manifesto) in earnest, with loads of subsidies and some very high taxes doing the shaping, until it all falls apart.