And the world's conscience. The government's Integrated Review boasted that the BBC is the most trusted broadcaster worldwide.
It covers up its scandals, but won't let climate sceptics challenge #NetZero policy on air.
The Integrated Review said that the BBC World Service promoted "media freedom".
Just not at home.
As I said on the Defund the BBC podcast, the BBC has *always* been a propaganda wing of the establishment.
Don't expect this skirmish - in which BBC News has been shown for what it is - to result in anything but a greater alignment of the establishment's institutions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A thread in which a Blairite climate wonk counters @SteveBakerHW's claim that #NetZero is 'a “ruinous experiment”' by claiming it 'isn’t backed up by evidence', by only citing evidence from #NetZero advocates and wonks.
It uses the authority of the orthodoxy's institutions to refute heresy.
Here, the @IEA's report is taken at face value, as though there could be no questions about the IEA's thinking, let alone its standing in domestic policymaking.
And here, it is the echo of the Stern Review's orthodoxy, carried forward by the CCC and others, that the cost will "only" be 1-2% of GDP. This forgets that those "studies" can be challenged, and were simply obedient to, rather than independent of Stern.
This keeps getting shared. It's odd that a tech billionaire should be interested in land, but 242,000 acres is not as big a holding as would be required to bring about an apocalypse. By my calculations, it's 328 sq miles - a square 19miles on each side.
“When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against Nature must lead to their own downfall.” ― Adolf Hitler
Lilico, Vine, Hodges and Peters have all made this argument: "I won’t accept another lockdown [...] to protect those who have failed to conduct their civic duty by getting the vaccine and protecting us all from infection."
"There is nothing unconservative about environmentalism – quite the opposite. Done properly, it can unite different strands of Tory thought, and tackling climate change is far too important to be ceded to the Left." -- @Madz_Grant
It should be obvious that if you need environmentalism to "unite different strands of Tory thought", then Tory thinking is disuniting and disunited. Environmentalism is not medicine for political ills. It is poison.
Yet it is what all dysfunctional political and public institutions have used to rescue themselves from their terminal mediocrity and irrelevance, and crises of legitimacy. The EU. The Royal Family. The Pope. I could go on... The green alignment belies deep foundational problems.
In what way will "legally-binding targets" to "restore nature" help to reopen the countless businesses that have folded? How will planting trees cut the millions on the waiting list? How will making life nice for fucking pigeons help recover the lost year of education?
Species are not in decline. There is no need for planting trees. The country is plenty green enough. And "legally-binding" targets merely prevent any possibility of building back anything that can help the economy.
This endless tree-hugging while millions and millions of people face an uncertain future is a symptom of totally degenerate politicians, political parties and Parliament.