PM speech on Net Zero: 20 September 2023
There’s been surprisingly little comment here on last night’s speech by Sunak, and what there is, is buried in other threads. Whatever you think of it, it was significant and it deserves to be discussed properly (the text can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-net-zero-20-september-2023)So, to initiate this, my view is that it was one of the most disgraceful, dishonest exercises in political rhetoric that I can remember. Sunak starts off by claiming that he has spent his first year as Prime Minister “bringing back stability to our economy, your government, and our country,” a dubious enough claim already, given the chaos of the school RAAC fiasco, to give only one example. But he goes on to say he wants to change the way our politics works: “Can we be brave in the decisions we make, even if there is a political cost? Can we be honest when the facts change, even if it’s awkward? And can we put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment, even if it means being controversial?” He then said that “I have made my decision: we are going to change. And over the coming months, I will set out a series of long-term decisions to deliver that change.”I’ve no idea what these decisions might involve, but his announcement last night of the U-turn on reaching net zero is not a promising beginning. He claims to accept that the climate emergency is serious, yet he puts off (to the dismay and fury of manufacturers) the changes to vehicle engines and home heating under a confected concern for the cost to families; it’s an absolutely blatant, cynical move to scrabble for some votes for his failing party. In other words, he has put his and the Conservative party’s interests above the country’s, the very short-term approach that he claims to be against. If his concern were genuine, why would he be scrapping the requirement for homeowners and landlords to meet energy efficiency targets? Why will he not take forward policies to encourage more sustainable behaviour, such as taxing airlines properly and informing the public of the carbon footprint of meat? Why does he boast about scrapping the proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car – when there was no such proposal in the first place? The speech was riddled with such inconsistencies, all with the aim of propagating the straight lie that he was thinking of the country in the long term instead of dishonestly trying to rescue his miserable government from the fate it so clearly deserves.Anyway, this post has gone on long enough: it’s your turn.
Richard Carter ● 11d35 Comments ● 2d