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
BBC Media Action -- claims that "a free press is essential to freedom and democracy".
But when I revealed that @bbcmediaaction was working on behalf of dodgy billionaires and governments, to enforce particular political agendas they blocked me.
@bbcmediaaction Here is the thread that offended them...
I'd call Gill Tavner a liar, but she's mainly just ignorant.
Children were deliberately targeted by the green movement at large, and their anxieties were deliberately provoked precisely to make them adherents of green ideology.
Here's my video explaining Why There is No Climate Crisis (and why people believe that there is). If you've seen it before, move to the 17 minute mark.
There you will see the late Rajendra Pachauri talking about "sensitising the young" to climate alarmism.
You will also see extremely young children -- far younger than 12 -- regurgitating claims that were manifestly produced by the adults in their lives, including the green movement, not ideas they have produced by themselves. And those ideas are moreover false.
I don't think Dale Vince really understands how the green movement was conceived, founded, and pushed to the top of national and global political agendas.
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?