The Green Alliance believes that the #ClimateAssemblyUK -- 100 people -- is a "public mandate".
The Green Alliance is an organisation which has been working in Parliament since the 1970s to produce a cross-party consensus on environment, AGAINST the public's interests.
I.e. by producing a cross-party consensus on climate change, the Green Alliance believed it could get MPs to vote for the draconian policies it lobbied for, on behalf of its billionaire and corporate backers, no matter what the public felt about climate change.
But this create a democratic deficit.
MPs were all on board the consensus. But they knew that their constituents wouldn't tolerate it.
But now there was a consensus, there was no possibility of debates, or contesting the principles of the agenda.
In other words, the public have been excluded from politics -- democracy has been abolished.
Literally.
To overcome these problems, the Green Alliance and its blob clients conceived of the Citizens Assembly.
Now, they want to persuade MPs -- i.e. the assembly of 650 citizens -- that the 110-member #citizensAssembly better reflects the views of the public than the election results do.
This is dangerous stuff.
If you do not think that the climate agenda is first & foremost about dismantling the democratic control of politics, it's because you have not been paying attention.
66 million people have just been excluded from the concept of a "mandate" by a special interest lobbying group.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Labour will further exclude the public from political decision-making by outsourcing policy to unelected panels of people, who will be tortured into submitting to the will of the fake experts that will bore them close to death, before providing them with rigged questions, and then writing up their deliberations to suit the conveners, not what the 'citizens assembly' actually determined...
Read my analysis of the climate 'citizens assembly'.
This is a somewhat shallow and hollow attempt to circumvent the major problem haunting global climate politics for four decades.
It was the 'free-rider' problem: why should we commit to self-harming policies when others won't?
Those other countries were 'developing' when the first global policies were being considered. Now they are well and truly developed, and their progress is accelerating, while much of the seemingly 'developed' world is stagnating, thanks in large part to rising energy costs, owed in turn directly and indirectly to the green policies she is arguing for.
Ritchie tries to counter what she claims is a 'weak argument' with a series of arguments that are even weaker.
1. Rich countries – that have emitted the most – have a moral responsibility
Why? The data provided by her own project show very clearly that there are no adverse signals in fundamental metrics of human welfare that can be attributed to climate change.
Moreover, the same data show that affordable, abundant and reliable energy are key to that progress.
So there is no injury. And thus there is no moral obligation.
This work is an add-on to our @ClimateDebateUK/@Togetherdec report on air pollution politics.
We show how green billionaires and their fake civil society organisations are corrupting UK democracy at all levels of government -- international, national, regional and local.
My 'debate' with Donnachadh McCarthy on @petercardwell's @TalkTV show this morning.
Starts at 1h.46m.44s into this Youtube clip.
A discussion thread follows...
Unfortunately debate with green zealots is not possible, because of what I call the 'Femi effect'. As with debates about Brexit with Remainer activists, you end facing a machine-gunned litany of unconnected factoids, precluding any focus on facts, let alone coherent argument.
That means you have to try to limit what you respond to -- McCarthy wanted to talk about everything from ice cores to annual global temperatures and his solar panels, not the rights and wrongs of UK climate and energy policy. And much of what he said was simply untrue.
Charles should sit on his golden chair with his silly gold hat and STFU about things he has no business speaking about.
If he does not, then he forces the issue, and reversing the political establishment's preoccupation with climate will therefore require a new settlement...
You may well yet be a monarchist. But the idiot king has forgotten that it is degenerate elites, whose hubris, intransigence and arrogance are suffered by millions, who then remove them.
"Love" of monarchs does not survive hunger.
At the very least, the democratic deficit afflicting climate policy is going to cause a constitutional crisis.
The House of Commons is completely unrepresentative. The House of Lords is corrupt, self-serving and aligned to the blobs. And the monarch is a green activist.