Takes a while before he gets to his actual suggestions, which are as stupid as you’d expect:
We know what a coherent right-wing agenda would look like: Net Zero immigration, energy sanity, a massive programme of planning reform, and housebuilding. We also know how to get there: identify, train, and promote talented people, primarily from the private sector, and smash the barriers to governing.
‘Net zero immigration’ - dystopian, unworkable, self-destructive
‘Energy sanity’ - meaningless, nobody thinks of themselves as proposing energy insanity, do they? I assume what he means is ‘Keep exploiting fossil fuels even though revenues are falling, prices are rising, there are obvious alternatives and climate change is accelerating’, which doesn’t strike me as ‘sane’. In any case, Labour’s plans are sane: accelerate the transition to the cheapest, cleanest forms of energy and keep using fossil fuels to keep the lights on while we’re managing the transition
‘massive programme of planning reform, and housebuilding’ - exactly what the Tories have failed to deliver and what Labour are proposing, which he assumes they’ll fail at for no discernible reason
And his plans for how to get there are just as asinine:
‘identify, train, and promote talented people’ - again, meaningless. Who could oppose this?
‘primarily from the private sector’ - why? Because. Sunak is ‘from the private sector’. So was Boris Johnson. How’s that worked out? And notice the weaselly ‘primarily’, too. Is that most? Some? All?
‘smash the barriers to governing’ - again, just meaningless waffle, something the Tories have continuously promised and found themselves unable to deliver. Brexit was meant to do this. It didn’t. Is this because, perhaps, the main ‘barriers to governing’ are that the Tories are totally detached from reality?
I don’t even understand how net zero immigration would even work. If you are of the mindset and you wish to deport someone you deport them right away, you don’t wait until someone else comes in.
In fairness. “net zero” has a precise but pimited meaning. If anything using “net zero” as shorthand for “zero net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide” is deficient in the first place. It’s snappy and (reasonably) clear but very easy to twist or repurpose or reframe.
Takes a while before he gets to his actual suggestions, which are as stupid as you’d expect:
And his plans for how to get there are just as asinine:
And repurposing the term “net zero” to drain it of meaning.
I don’t even understand how net zero immigration would even work. If you are of the mindset and you wish to deport someone you deport them right away, you don’t wait until someone else comes in.
In fairness. “net zero” has a precise but pimited meaning. If anything using “net zero” as shorthand for “zero net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide” is deficient in the first place. It’s snappy and (reasonably) clear but very easy to twist or repurpose or reframe.