The BBC and the MSM have replaced the Uniparty
We don’t need the Uniparty any longer. We have the Westminster MSM which ‘campaign’ on our behalf. The formerly august Times is especially good at this, and now The Sun is also celebrating. According to their print edition’s front page, it was because of The Sun that Sunak ‘changed his mind’ about Net Zero. This is documented in this morning’s compilation of MSM front pages: ”Newspaper headlines: Sunak’s ‘green gamble’ and ‘le rock and royal’.” (link).
The sniffy headlines in the broadsheets read by the well-off WFH ‘elites’ make this quite clear. While they and the editors writing for them are very upset, calling Sunak’s announcement ‘a gamble’, the Red Tops written for and read by the thick, unwashed plebs outside the M25, are pointing out that Sunak understood that their readers wouldn’t have been able to shoulder the cost of Net Zero.
Still, Sunak didn’t quite dare to rescind all the Net Zero greenery, leaving a small bone for these zealots to gnaw on according to the DM’s summary headline:
“’The flak won’t stop me doing what’s right’: Rishi Sunak takes on eco-zealots in a bold move that could transform Tory fortunes and save families up to £15,000 as he hits the brakes on the race to Net Zero – Warned ‘unacceptable costs’ on families risk wrecking support for saving planet – Ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in 2030 pushed back by five years” (link)
It’s nice to see the Net Zero acolytes on the receiving end of a ‘jam tomorrow’ ploy, for a change. Who knows what’ll happen by 2035. Meanwhile, the report in The Times, full of sources gossiping, inadvertently documents that government policy is now driven by leaks to the MSM, forcing a government reaction with subsequent extra criticism. See the headline of this report:
“How Rishi Sunak’s green delay ‘blindsided’ ministers – The prime minister’s sudden change of heart on net-zero deadlines was years in the making — if you were in the know” (link, paywalled)
It escapes me how a ‘sudden change of heart’ can have been ‘long in the making’, but then, I’m not a Times reporter. Firstly, we’re told (my emphasis) that:
“The root of Sunak’s decision to change the government’s plans on net zero lies with the Uxbridge & South Ruislip by-election in July. The Tories clung on to the seat by 495 votes after turning it into what was in effect a referendum on expansion of the ultra-low emissions zone, an anti-pollution charge on older diesel and petrol vehicles, to outer London.” (link, paywalled)
So a few months are now ‘years’ – how interesting … Still, apparently some Tories have read the attitude of their constituents correctly: no to Net Zero and ULEZ. Going back in time, The Times next tells us that Sunak ‘lost the argument’ with Johnson about Net Zero when he was chancellor. Next, there’s a ‘source’ which handed The Times a private (!) letter written in 2021 according to which Sunak warned of the “profound financial and delivery consequences” of the interim targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the route to 2050.” (link, paywalled)
Did that ‘source’ leak yon letter at the time and The Times sat on it, waiting for a ‘good occasion’? Did they leak it now? Who knows when papers run our politics! There’s one last piece of evidence for the corruption of those working in No 10 and Whitehall, the mandarins and SpAds who push their own agenda, not that for which their employers, the ministers, had been voted in:
“The prime minister had been intending to announce the change in his position on net zero tomorrow but a leak of the plans on Tuesday evening to the BBC forced him to bring them forward. Sunak, clearly incensed, issued a statement condemning the leak and setting out his broad thinking.” (link, paywalled)
Good to know that policies are determined by leaks to the BBC’! Isn’t it fantastic to allow “critics of the plan to get in first, due to the nearly 24-hour gap between leak and official statement”! And how utterly wonderful it is to have the BBC and the rest of the MSM forcing the PM and his cabinet to dance to their music, never mind other urgent issues which conceivably might have been important.
Clearly, “we” don’t need no Uniparty when there are the unelected, unaccountable BBC and the Westminster MSM, running campaigns on our behalf and determine which ‘issues’ are important thanks to ‘sources’ who leak with intent.
That’s all I have for today. At least we now have proof, from the horses’ mouths, how corrupt and rotten our political system really is. Have a good day.
SY What can I say except totally frightening. It’s impossible to get through to these lemming-zealots as I know from experience; they are programmed to self destruct taking us with them. Even when everything has come crashing down round our ears they still won’t have learned the error of their ways.
Their superstition reminds me of the Middle Ages.
The very prescient Hilaire Belloc warned that when our traditional religion is abandoned, its place will be taken with strange new gods, evil gods. Hilaire Belloc also warned about the nanny state and NHS racketeering. Sure enough these things have come to pass.
The part played by BBC and MSM in the ruination of Britain is humungeous. People are waking up to their lies but not fast enough I think.
I have just had to switch Farage off on GB News this evening. He interviewed the leader of a Polish political party which is favourite to win their general election in 3 weeks time, whose policy will be not to allow one single illegal migrant to cross their border and will not have quotas forced upon his country by the European Union, and any illegal migrants that are successful will be sent back. Obviously this is something we should be doing in this country with regard to the English Channel migrant situation if only we had some politicians with a backbone to do it. Farage may have been playing devils advocate, but he gave this Polish politician a hard time and was critical of the prospective policy and rather took the side of another panellist who said Poland couldn’t do this as it was part of the EU. Dear oh dear, weak weak weak. I keep on saying to myself that I am going to give Farage a miss, but is this his real thoughts on the issue, or is the media man that he is now coming out……
Is the the proposal “oven ready”?
Roger Scruton characterised the difference between left and right as the left thinking the right are bad (or even evil) and the right thinking the left are simply mistaken. He was highlighting a moral dimension that made dealing with the left so difficult.
The hunger for a moral or higher purpose is an affliction (of the middle class mainly). No longer serving God, and the dissolution of the nation state halted by Brexit (for now), what could be a higher purpose than saving the planet? The few green party people I know regard themselves as good people, and from conversations with them I glean that they joined the greens to prove to themselves as much as proving to others that they are good.
As T S Eliot noted (in his play ‘The Cocktail Party’)
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm—but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves”.
or as C S Lewis put it
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. …..those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”.
Questioning net zero as I sometimes do in conversation with its running dogs I am treated as a heretic and not as someone with a moral right to enter into discourse. I think I mentioned at the time a talk back in March entitled “The impossibility of Net Zero”. It was a lunchtime event with 14 of us in the audience including a nuclear engineer, the head of electric batteries for Nissan, some civil servants and a bloke from the army. I had attended in the mistaken belief that I would be among people (at last) who a) were genuinely interested and b) in a forum where discussion and debate would be possible. I was wrong on both accounts. The talk, by an engineer, was not about the desirability of otherwise of net zero but merely its impossibility. The guy was attacked from all quarters and looked quite shocked at the end. He intended a reasoned technical talk and was unprepared for (and ill equipped to deal with) a moralising, political backlash. He had done calculations (citing official sources to support his case) but I was probably the only person making an effort to follow. Thank God burning at the stake is out of fashion. The civil servant on my left was visibly sneering when the sums came out the ‘wrong’ way and gave me several death stares during Q&A when I did my best to support the poor guy giving the talk which he finished ashen faced. The civil servants got into a ding dong with the nuclear engineer over nuclear safety. No wonder modular reactors are held up. When I mentioned China’s increasing utput of CO2 nullifying the UK’s reduction the army guy stood up and turned to me saying “it’s the right thing to do”. The quasi-religious attitude among supposedly educated and intelligent people quite shocked me. The American Daniel Moynihan once said: “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”. Net zero zealots disagree. As with Covid, this colonisation and debasement of science is quite chilling.
Stout – well done for giving your ten penn’orth. It seems to me that the Net Zero zealots hail mostly from the professional and managerial classes. They have been sucking in Net Zero dogma for years – it’s as if their careers depend upon it – hang on – come to think of it they do!!!