I’ve been saying for some time that Reform UK is our only hope but the electorate blew it in the July general election because too many people voted for the treasonous Lab/Con/Lib Uniparty, see the conclusion of this post: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
If only more people could be persuaded to abandon their long-held, no longer deserved Lab/Con/Lib loyalties and vote instead for Reform we could win easily in the same way that the separatist SNP keep winning in Scotland because the unionist Lab/Con/Lib votes get split.
Farage was undoubtedly the main catalyst of Reform’s surge in the last election. However I worry that he may be doing more harm than good with his slot on GB News. He is lumbered with a supposedly balanced pair of Uniparty Dweedledum-Dweedledee politicians who both say outrageously stupid things about Net Zero but Farage doesn’t call them out. He needs to get himself another Roger Helmer ASAP to sharpen his understanding of the climate change hoax. Someone like you, John, would be ideal!
Given this inconvenient fact, Farage should ask Starmer in the House of Commons what is the point of the UK trying to achieve Net Zero unilaterally. Starmer would of course answer with a lie or a non-answer fobbing-off, but that would at least be one more nail in his coffin, and that of Net Zero.
I think you underestimate Farage and his audience. When he is not under OFCOM watch he shows every sign of having a very good understanding of the basics of AGW/net zero exaggeration and falsehood, and of at least the basics of a more sensible energy policy. Also he credits his audience with the intelligence to appreciate that the token lefties are spouting nonsense. He doesn't need to argue with them. He is also wise enough not to. Trying to win over those with climate religion by attacking their fundamental beliefs simply allows them to shreik denier! Much better to tackle the real failures of net zero policy that are undeniable.
If you read online comments from the public it is quite clear that increasing numbers are not fooled by the propaganda. Not many GBN viewers still believe what the BBC has told them That's why they watch GBN in the first place.
A lot of useful thinking. I would point out that the Tory party is in fact far from united, as defections such as Andrea Jenkins show: there are many others who are against net zero and high migration etc. Eventually the party will have to split. Miriam Cates is pretty much spot on here
I think it is legitimate to use the Badenoch defence that expecting every detail to be worked out and presented is not a realistic expectation, at least until an election comes into view. However, the influx of large donations and rising member numbers does help provide the resources to allow work to proceed.
The internal party structure is clearly important to ensure that it has integrity, professionalism, and is not liable to disintegrate under disagreement between alternative absolutists. There are traps in the Cates attempts to force issues that are designed to be divisive ahead of any need to address them fully and democratically.
It should be a clear aim to build up cadres of people who could easily be seen as ministers in a government. They should concentrate on building up expertise and contacts and a support team and public profile in those areas, and cover the full gamut of government and at least the more important quangos. This is important to persuade the public that a Reform government could do the job, and not to get caught out like Truss by not even being aware of key issues such as LDIs that allowed Bailey to mount his coup or by not having a proper plan in place (she should have sacked Bailey, not Scholar, and had a replacement lined up). It is not just ministers that are needed, but key quangocrats who can be called onto sort out the quangos and perhaps bypass the civil service.
Dealing with the civil service is another ballgame. It is so riddled by the long march through the institutions that much of it needs closing down altogether, with new blood to handle the most essential functions. It is of course capable of organising huge resistance, particularly when allied with the justice system. It will require a lot of contingency planning to work out how best to deal with that. Recruiting sympathisers in the middle and senior ranks would help. Designing programmes to divert them from their previous courses will be an essential interim measure.
Tackling the actual legislative measures required to move in the right direction is no simple matter. So much legislation is interlocked(and probably contradictory already). Add in judicial mongering and achieving real reform will require very careful steering and considerable specialist legal and other expertise. Do it wrong and you risk chaos.
Perhaps the greatest strength of Reform at the moment is that there is a far greater degree of unity of purpose and broad direction among members and Reform voters than in any other party. That is what can be capitalised on to build wider public support. That can also be influenced by starting to develop contributions from more sympathetic think tanks and journalists, and also international coalitions of those who do not favour the EHCR, Pandemic Treaty, IPCC, UN Migration Pact etc. Not merely as opposition, but also developing alternative ways ahead that could be agreed. That defuses criticisms of isolationism. Of course, close links with the Trump administration are an important starting point, but they need to be spread much more widely. Reform needs to be outward looking, cementing support internationally as well as nationally. It needs to start developing links and policy accordingly.
Exciting times for anyone who gets involved I think.
I'd like to pick up on one particular point - "expecting every detail to be worked out and presented is not a realistic expectation".
Indeed. Let's illustrate the issue though with a couple of high-profile examples: energy & immigration.
𝗘𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆: There are many nuanced issues here. Firstly, there's basic political philosophy - how much (if at all) should government try to drive the energy industry via "policy"? Or should it (mostly) be left to commercial market forces?
Then there's scope: Transport, home heating (natural gas), electricity & industry. Electricity - Nuclear, gas, coal, a mix of the three? If coal, imported or domestic? If gas, fracking, etc. If nuclear, fission ("traditional", thorium, SMR's etc.), fusion, single neutron transfer?
There's potentially an awful lot to a comprehensive energy policy, & it will take time to develop. But first you need some facts, based on solid expertise & research, e.g. https://sites.google.com/view/the-lpf/home.
Its a long, complex process, and short cuts don't help. So you need effective (project) management and genuine specialist expertise. Hence this article.
𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Similarly, there is a huge complexity of detail. Legal & illegal. Is legal immigration - or can it be - a net boost or drain on the economy? How to stop illegal immigration - turn the boats around, or detain & deport? What about the illegals already here - genuine refugees v. economic migrants v. Invading subversives. Etc.
Someone needs to do the work - the hard yards - of analysing all these issues, & someone needs to manage the process. Only then can genuinely effective policy be formulated. Tice's "send the boats back" just won't cut it at the next election.
Energy is essentially entirely government quango controlled already. I don't think the party line about nationalising utilities is at all helpful. It would consume vast resources adding massively to debt to create a monster that would fail to act in the interest of consumers. If you look at the duties of OFGEM they are to implement net zero. They should return to how they were when OFGEM was set up, prioritising consumers. The remit should be to lower real costs (not hide behind social subsidies) while keeping the lights on and the home fires burning. It needs fresh leadership with that mindset.
The ONR is also in need of a serious change of mindset. It must stop finding ways to obstruct nuclear development. We need to learn how Marcel Boiteux earned the title of father of the French nuclear industry.
There needs to be a standstill on carbon budgets and targets at least initially: it might be tricky going for complete abolition from the outset because of the legal protections built in to renewables subsidies, which also render the idea of taxing the subsidies away rather moot. Create a Red Team to demolish the CCC by exposing all its nonsense assumptions. It would give official recognition to those scientists, engineers and economists whose voices are suppressed, and demonstrate that net zero is unaffordable, unachievable and as much use as courtiers expecting Cnut to control the tides. It needs to be led by people of substance and unimpeachable credentials.
Public re-education is also needed, so that means tackling OFCOM and MSM reporting as well as the education system itself. It extends into the more general green march through the institutions, including the judiciary and the FCDO particularly in their role negotiating international agreements and supporting green initiatives from foreign governments and multilateral organisations.
With those pieces in place it becomes possible to have intelligent debate about the detail. Indeed, one might invite the industry and wider public to offer competing visions as to how to deliver a resilient, low cost energy system for the future. It is essential to cut NESO from the process of running future energy scenarios. Their vision is always more grid, which is why they have supported net zero. They do have some technical expertise which is worth tapping, but not at a policy level.
I could go on to develop more detail as it is my specialist area, but that's a start.
I’ve been saying for some time that Reform UK is our only hope but the electorate blew it in the July general election because too many people voted for the treasonous Lab/Con/Lib Uniparty, see the conclusion of this post: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
If only more people could be persuaded to abandon their long-held, no longer deserved Lab/Con/Lib loyalties and vote instead for Reform we could win easily in the same way that the separatist SNP keep winning in Scotland because the unionist Lab/Con/Lib votes get split.
Farage was undoubtedly the main catalyst of Reform’s surge in the last election. However I worry that he may be doing more harm than good with his slot on GB News. He is lumbered with a supposedly balanced pair of Uniparty Dweedledum-Dweedledee politicians who both say outrageously stupid things about Net Zero but Farage doesn’t call them out. He needs to get himself another Roger Helmer ASAP to sharpen his understanding of the climate change hoax. Someone like you, John, would be ideal!
Once he is fully clued up on the climate change hoax, Farage should challenge Labour in the House of Commons. The key reality that the much-touted global energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables is simply not happening, for example see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/12/18/iea-coal-outlook-bad-news-for-miliband/.
Given this inconvenient fact, Farage should ask Starmer in the House of Commons what is the point of the UK trying to achieve Net Zero unilaterally. Starmer would of course answer with a lie or a non-answer fobbing-off, but that would at least be one more nail in his coffin, and that of Net Zero.
What Farage really thinks
https://x.com/AvonandsomerRob/status/1807687079918256358
Thanks! I've just reposted that with a quote tweet.
https://x.com/EyesOnThePriz12/status/1872953314842952006
I think you underestimate Farage and his audience. When he is not under OFCOM watch he shows every sign of having a very good understanding of the basics of AGW/net zero exaggeration and falsehood, and of at least the basics of a more sensible energy policy. Also he credits his audience with the intelligence to appreciate that the token lefties are spouting nonsense. He doesn't need to argue with them. He is also wise enough not to. Trying to win over those with climate religion by attacking their fundamental beliefs simply allows them to shreik denier! Much better to tackle the real failures of net zero policy that are undeniable.
If you read online comments from the public it is quite clear that increasing numbers are not fooled by the propaganda. Not many GBN viewers still believe what the BBC has told them That's why they watch GBN in the first place.
It would appear that the answer at the moment is no.
A lot of useful thinking. I would point out that the Tory party is in fact far from united, as defections such as Andrea Jenkins show: there are many others who are against net zero and high migration etc. Eventually the party will have to split. Miriam Cates is pretty much spot on here
https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/reform-opinion-miriam-cates
I think it is legitimate to use the Badenoch defence that expecting every detail to be worked out and presented is not a realistic expectation, at least until an election comes into view. However, the influx of large donations and rising member numbers does help provide the resources to allow work to proceed.
The internal party structure is clearly important to ensure that it has integrity, professionalism, and is not liable to disintegrate under disagreement between alternative absolutists. There are traps in the Cates attempts to force issues that are designed to be divisive ahead of any need to address them fully and democratically.
It should be a clear aim to build up cadres of people who could easily be seen as ministers in a government. They should concentrate on building up expertise and contacts and a support team and public profile in those areas, and cover the full gamut of government and at least the more important quangos. This is important to persuade the public that a Reform government could do the job, and not to get caught out like Truss by not even being aware of key issues such as LDIs that allowed Bailey to mount his coup or by not having a proper plan in place (she should have sacked Bailey, not Scholar, and had a replacement lined up). It is not just ministers that are needed, but key quangocrats who can be called onto sort out the quangos and perhaps bypass the civil service.
Dealing with the civil service is another ballgame. It is so riddled by the long march through the institutions that much of it needs closing down altogether, with new blood to handle the most essential functions. It is of course capable of organising huge resistance, particularly when allied with the justice system. It will require a lot of contingency planning to work out how best to deal with that. Recruiting sympathisers in the middle and senior ranks would help. Designing programmes to divert them from their previous courses will be an essential interim measure.
Tackling the actual legislative measures required to move in the right direction is no simple matter. So much legislation is interlocked(and probably contradictory already). Add in judicial mongering and achieving real reform will require very careful steering and considerable specialist legal and other expertise. Do it wrong and you risk chaos.
Perhaps the greatest strength of Reform at the moment is that there is a far greater degree of unity of purpose and broad direction among members and Reform voters than in any other party. That is what can be capitalised on to build wider public support. That can also be influenced by starting to develop contributions from more sympathetic think tanks and journalists, and also international coalitions of those who do not favour the EHCR, Pandemic Treaty, IPCC, UN Migration Pact etc. Not merely as opposition, but also developing alternative ways ahead that could be agreed. That defuses criticisms of isolationism. Of course, close links with the Trump administration are an important starting point, but they need to be spread much more widely. Reform needs to be outward looking, cementing support internationally as well as nationally. It needs to start developing links and policy accordingly.
Exciting times for anyone who gets involved I think.
Thoughtful comment, thanks!
I'd like to pick up on one particular point - "expecting every detail to be worked out and presented is not a realistic expectation".
Indeed. Let's illustrate the issue though with a couple of high-profile examples: energy & immigration.
𝗘𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆: There are many nuanced issues here. Firstly, there's basic political philosophy - how much (if at all) should government try to drive the energy industry via "policy"? Or should it (mostly) be left to commercial market forces?
Then there's scope: Transport, home heating (natural gas), electricity & industry. Electricity - Nuclear, gas, coal, a mix of the three? If coal, imported or domestic? If gas, fracking, etc. If nuclear, fission ("traditional", thorium, SMR's etc.), fusion, single neutron transfer?
There's potentially an awful lot to a comprehensive energy policy, & it will take time to develop. But first you need some facts, based on solid expertise & research, e.g. https://sites.google.com/view/the-lpf/home.
Its a long, complex process, and short cuts don't help. So you need effective (project) management and genuine specialist expertise. Hence this article.
𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Similarly, there is a huge complexity of detail. Legal & illegal. Is legal immigration - or can it be - a net boost or drain on the economy? How to stop illegal immigration - turn the boats around, or detain & deport? What about the illegals already here - genuine refugees v. economic migrants v. Invading subversives. Etc.
Someone needs to do the work - the hard yards - of analysing all these issues, & someone needs to manage the process. Only then can genuinely effective policy be formulated. Tice's "send the boats back" just won't cut it at the next election.
Energy is essentially entirely government quango controlled already. I don't think the party line about nationalising utilities is at all helpful. It would consume vast resources adding massively to debt to create a monster that would fail to act in the interest of consumers. If you look at the duties of OFGEM they are to implement net zero. They should return to how they were when OFGEM was set up, prioritising consumers. The remit should be to lower real costs (not hide behind social subsidies) while keeping the lights on and the home fires burning. It needs fresh leadership with that mindset.
The ONR is also in need of a serious change of mindset. It must stop finding ways to obstruct nuclear development. We need to learn how Marcel Boiteux earned the title of father of the French nuclear industry.
There needs to be a standstill on carbon budgets and targets at least initially: it might be tricky going for complete abolition from the outset because of the legal protections built in to renewables subsidies, which also render the idea of taxing the subsidies away rather moot. Create a Red Team to demolish the CCC by exposing all its nonsense assumptions. It would give official recognition to those scientists, engineers and economists whose voices are suppressed, and demonstrate that net zero is unaffordable, unachievable and as much use as courtiers expecting Cnut to control the tides. It needs to be led by people of substance and unimpeachable credentials.
Public re-education is also needed, so that means tackling OFCOM and MSM reporting as well as the education system itself. It extends into the more general green march through the institutions, including the judiciary and the FCDO particularly in their role negotiating international agreements and supporting green initiatives from foreign governments and multilateral organisations.
With those pieces in place it becomes possible to have intelligent debate about the detail. Indeed, one might invite the industry and wider public to offer competing visions as to how to deliver a resilient, low cost energy system for the future. It is essential to cut NESO from the process of running future energy scenarios. Their vision is always more grid, which is why they have supported net zero. They do have some technical expertise which is worth tapping, but not at a policy level.
I could go on to develop more detail as it is my specialist area, but that's a start.