But what's more interesting is why the last-remaining object of the Blair-era consensus is still intact.
While Blair and then Brown, and then Cameron were trying to build their projects on the Westminster consensus, to make climate change the dominant issue, the loudest voice from the public was the demand for the referendum.
The Conservatives -- each member of which has a price -- were easily bought by the green blob.
They were going to continue the project that Blair, Brown, Mandelson, the Milibands and Hilary Benn, among others, had started.
But there remains no public appetite for it.
Any *sensible* Tory analyst would look at what consensus politics, divorced from the public, brings. It would realise that is has a narrow opportunity to turn Labour's disarray into permanent advantage and divorce itself from the blob...
Or to mirror Labour's mistakes.
It doesn't need the blob. It is far ahead in the polls. And it looks like Labour are on the floor, unable to mobilise its traditional constituency.
It could scrap Net Zero, and perhaps even the Climate Change Act tomorrow.
But it would *rather* do the blob's bidding.
The Tories are determined to follow Labour into the abyss.
So be it.
It is easier to watch people set fire to themselves than it is trying to convince them not to play with matches.
As long as the fire doesn't spread.
But we should try.
How to tell them that people don't want cosy Westminster consensuses? We don't want wet think tanks drafting wet policy ideas. We don't share their green ideology. We want them to fight it out, left, right and centre! That's why we put our 'x' in their box.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many interesting comments from @DaleVince in this Telegraph piece. But this one struck me...
"There’s always been a funding gap between the two main parties and I wanted to level the playing field… I felt it essential to do all that I could to help Labour win the last election."
@DaleVince As with many of Dale Vince's claims that involve numbers, an inspection of the data reveals the opposite case. Between 2013-22 inclusive, the "funding gap" was in Labour's favour in all but one year.
@DaleVince The article says, "listen to any of his interviews and Vince – who was diagnosed with autism at the age of 50 – is clearly highly intelligent."
"He claims his IQ is above 150".
I find both of those claims rather difficult to believe.
This was very well known and understood in the decade before last, when exactly this phenomenon occurred with solar PV dumping undermined US and European manufacturers.
There is no need to prance around in front of infographics to explain European deindustrialisation. The fact is that UK/EU policies created a market for these products while undermining domestic manufacturers.
"Oh wow!", said the green lobby. "Look how cheap solar power is getting! Isn't China amazing!" They said we needed stronger climate targets to be imposed sooner.
And the fact is that Sky News took it upon itself to abandon proper criticism of that policy agenda, to become an advocate for green policies. It even had a daily climate news show. It committed itself to becoming a political campaigning organisation, to lead its audience towards supporting climate policies.
This PowerPoint-contemporary dance performance tells the story that critics were pointing out two decades ago.
No. It's not a perfect storm, Ed.
Perfect storms are unpredictable. Nobody knows quite how and when the meteorological forces will align and multiply.
Many people were warning of this outcome. Why did Sky news prefer instead to produce propaganda?
1. The Quadrature Foundation, which gave a £4 million donation to the Labour Party, and from where the government's new Climate Envoy, Rachel Kyte emerged.
2. The European Climate Foundation, which turns dark money from green billionaires into grants for climate campaigning organisations, including XR. It does not declare who its grantors or grantees are, but is largely controlled by hedge fund billionaire Christopher Hohn.
Quadrature Climate Foundation's (QCF) grants to pro-Net Zero lobbying organisations VASTLY exceeds even Quadrature's alleged holdings in companies that have hydrocarbon energy interests.
It would make no sense whatsoever to fund climate lobbying organisations with more than a $billlion, as QCF has, for the sake of an alleged interest in hydrocarbon companies worth $170 million.
The question you should be asking is about the $billion of pro-Net Zero lobbying and its influence over UK energy policy.
There is a lot more to say on QCF's grantees, including how they create conspiracy theories about the funding of lobbying organisations and donations to political parties.
Here is one example showing how fake philanthropic foundations like Quadrature spend VAST amounts of money on pro-Net Zero lobbying, and how there is ZERO evidence of the contrary -- fossil fuel interests funding anti Net Zero lobbying.
In fact, QCF grantees, InfluenceMap were so bereft of evidence linking fossil fuel interests to anti-climate lobbying that they had to count PRO climate lobbying as ANTI climate lobbying.
"Possible" needed the money because they destroyed their own image when they were called 10:10, and their adverts depicting the executions of children and other climate apostates led to their backers pulling out.
But they were outsourced PR for govt. Always were.
In this video of Cameron and Huhne declaring the greenest government ever, you can see a wonk (who I believe may be a PR for a major wind company) carrying the 10:10 logo, for some bizarre reason.