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
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.
Preparation for this has been going on for quite some time. By eliding fundamentally distinct categories and even opposing arguments, the disinfo lobby has created the notion of online harms, and thereby the basis for policing political commentary.
Dale Vince claims that "environmental protesting is an act of conscience". But he does not believe in freedom of conscience. He argues that "climate denial should become a criminal offence".
Vince is also trying to use his £millions in libel action against his critics -- Richard Tice, Sean Bailey, and Paul Staines -- who reproduced his moral relativism about "terrorism" in his own words, and to force the Internet blocking of web sites.
He compares the average tariffs for various criminal offenses. But he does not compare the harms caused by those offences, either in economic terms, or deeper emotional and actual injuries caused to people by attempts to immobilise the road network. Those criminal actions were in very substantial part enabled by Vince himself, who admits that he gave the perpetrators "more than £340,000" to enable the expression of their "act of conscience". Who is to say that they are not motivated by money? On whose behalf, and in whose interests did they act? In many parts of the world, Vince would have been in the dock with the protesters for his part in their joint enterprise.
Nobody is against expressions of conscience. But JSO manifestly intended to cause far more chaos than they in fact achieved.
Disrupting the transport network to the extent that Hallam and his co-defendants intended is not the expression of "conscience". They intended to cause material harm to millions of people. They got off lightly.
They claim that they want to help save the lives of millions or even billions of people. But if you point out that JSO's actions, and the policies they demand -- and will continue to demand until they get their way, unless they are stopped -- are more harmful than climate change and its effects, then, Vince argues, you should face prison. And he uses his fortune to lobby for those policies, to fund those violent activists and their legal expenses, to prevent justice and to prevent transparent, democratic and scientific debate.
JSO do not have a rational view of the world. Their claims are not even mainstream "consensus" science. They are radical outliers, further from the consensus even than "deniers". That is why they, and their bleak ideology must be confronted.