Thread by @clim8resistance

Me in @spikedonline on why the government cannot explain its climate 'plan', why MPs are just as culpable as the government for policy failure, and why none of them can admit what their climate ambitions really are.

spiked-online.com/2021/03/10/com…

Here is the summary of the Public Accounts Committee report that found the government 'has no plan'.

The highlighted text is extraordinary.

"Government has not yet properly engaged with the public on the substantial behaviour changes that achieving net zero will require."

The PAC MPs' criticism of the government is that the government is insufficiently draconian.

Much as there was no opposition to the policies, and of the government giving itself ever greater powers over the last year, the PAC wants the government to inflict more hardship.

It is really weird.

What "Government has not yet properly engaged with the public on the substantial behaviour changes that achieving net zero will require" means is there is no democratic mandate for what the government aims to do to the public.

It's there black & white.

This is a fundamental departure from democratic politics, and no MP can admit it. Many of them are simply too dense to understand what it is they are demanding.

MPs have decided that you may no longer have a say in how you are governed.

Read it again, and put your least favourite '-ism' in the blank space.

-- "Government has not yet properly engaged with the public on the substantial behaviour changes that achieving [...............] will require." --

The green agenda is deeply ideological.

It is difficult for some people to understand what green ideology is. Here it is...

MPs have decided that your lives and lifestyles are theirs to regulate, and that you do not require a choice.

No debate. No vote. No voice. No alternative. No criticism.

Concomitantly...

No heating. No power. No car. No transport. No job. No money. No food. No medicine.

Forget it. The demand for these things is unsustainable. And academics have decided that you don't need them, and that anyway, saving the planet is more important.

You may think, 'well that's a bit dramatic'.

But is it? If the mechanism for holding government to account, and the consensus driving the political agenda is that abolishing cheap and abundant energy is the first priority of the state, then how can policy failure be corrected?

Consider any policy failure in our history. Now consider that MPs have decided that your entire life requires their intervention and micromanagement -- i.e. that 62% of emissions reduction will come from policies that regulate your "attitude" and "behaviour".

Consider for instance the costs of HS2. Initially the cost was estimated at £35bn. It is now in excess of £100 bn.

And that's for just one track. The same caste of incompetents want to regulate your life. Any error on their spreadsheet means you don't get what you *need*.

Not *want* -- *NEED*.

And you have no recourse. You can only vote for a party which will do exactly the same thing.

And if you complain, you're a denier.

Here's what @theCCCuk member Julia King, Baroness Brown of Cambridge said, way back in 2009, when emissions-reduction policy was being designed:

"I have a lot of sympathy for our politicians, because they are dealing with extremely selfish populations."

spiked-online.com/2009/02/25/we-…

King could not believe that anyone would dare to challenge the CCC. She had nothing but contempt for ordinary people -- they are "extremely selfish" for having their own ideas about how to live their lives. She epitomises @theCCCuk.

Despite this being out in the open over a decade ago, journalists instead parrot green lobbyists' emphasis on upsides: "green jobs", "green growth", "green industrial revolution".

They never report Julia King's arrogance or the detail of the @theCCCuk's demands.

Why did no party manifesto say "We have an extremely selfish population"?

All parties defer uncritically to @theCCCuk. MPs voted nearly unanimously (only 5/650 against) to support its creation.

So why don't they explain to the public what their views mean?

Why don't MPs say that ordinary people's desires for meaningful jobs, for nice comfortable homes, for domestic appliances, for transport, for holidays, for choosing their own lifestyles...

... are "extremely selfish" desires.

I bet Julia King has a nice house.

("... if the mechanism for holding government to account IS GONE....").