You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
His sponsors are likely to be very pleased though.
I doubt it, the actual report is pretty scathing. It reports how interested bodies- like oil companies are also responsible for a lack of responsiveness in dealing with climate change.
I wasn't talking about the report! I was talking about the timing of Tony Blair sticking his oar in......one day before an important election and how it is likely to help climate change sceptical parties such as Reform and the Tories under an extreme right-wing leadership.
You mentioned the effect of "headlines", Tony Blair fully understands the effect of headlines, as do apparently many Labour MPs who have criticised Tony Blair's intervention one day before an important election.
Remember this is a man who is paid vast amounts of money by governments, and despots, to advise them on political tactics and public relations exercises.
He knows exactly what he is doing. So the question remains, why could he not wait two days to release his report to minimise the damage to the party which he is apparently a member of?
He has clearly helped the climate change deniers like Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage.
I still believe its just to get the headlines to appear relevant still. Pleasing his paymasters is a useful side effect
I’m perfectly happy with all the alternative energy sources that are being built, and I’m also quite happy to have new nuclear power stations being built - they are a stable and consistent source of energy to back up the solar, wind and possible tidal energy supplies.
However, at the same time vast new render farms are being built to generate the new super whizzy AI and Bitcoins that people tell us are the future for computing and international financial services. The energy required is vast, and these places generate enormous quantities of heat, and require enormous amounts of energy to cool.
How, I ask myself, are we going to square that particulary vicious circle… 🧐
But what if it does actually mean they can't go on holiday?
then people will vote for someone who tells them they don't need to and can just carry on as normal.
There are two big problems here to my mind
1) pursing emission reduction and decarbonisation is "anti-capitalist" because we need societal change which involves moving aways from a constant growth and consumption model.
2) several key billionaires have already bought into the "mad max" apolalypse scenario, so their actions seem to be focused on get as much money as possible and build a bunker / spaceship / <insert science fiction wet dream here> to ride it out while the world burns
One of the weirdest things about all this is that the Government is polling relatively well on Net zero and more widely the public is accepting that climate change is man made and needs to be addressed.
Essentially anti climate change/ net zero activism by the right wing papers and parties has bled into the mainstream narrative because conflict makes good news
This is how Brexit crept up the political agenda over years. Climate change denial is being rehabilitated back into mainstream discourse.
Climate change denial is very much not what the Blair report says, but is foreword does not properly reflect the contents. The reporting of Blair's foreword then gets pushed further by the telegraph etc and then lands with Blair believes Labours policies on climate change from Reform and Tories
It will be a disaster all ways up if Labour back down on Net zero policies on the back of this
I imagine that most of the outrage is coming from people who are taking bits deliberately out of context. Or who haven't read the report.
But in any case it proves the adage that it's always better to say the wrong thing at the right time than say the right thing at the wrong time.
he runs an “institute” with hundreds of staff to generate these sort of thought pieces. I’m quite sure if he just wanted to be in headlines he could be without all that hassle and cost. Indeed he could have fired off a press release or opinion piece on net zero without any substance behind it and it would have got similar attention because it seems most people debating it here haven’t actually read what they wrote! I had some brief interaction with his institute on totally different topics - they were trying to tackle a problem that we describe as “trying to boil an ocean” (a metaphor not a climate change reference). It was quite nice to talk to people who actually weren’t focussed (as far as I could see) on what’s in it for me, how will the politics look, and 5 yr parliamentary cycles. I didn’t deal with Tony himself, his purpose appeared to be to unlock conversations with people who wouldn’t answer the door to ordinary folk.I still believe its just to get the headlines to appear relevant still. Pleasing his paymasters is a useful side effect
it seems most people debating it here haven’t actually read what they wrote!
You misunderstand what people are debating poly. The issue being discussed here, and apparently in Downing Street, are the headlines which Tony Blair generated, not the contents of the report.
Headlines which could very easily have been put on hold for a mere 48 hours, if Blair had so wished.
Headlines that gave Nigel Farage the opportunity to announce "we are winning the net zero argument" hours before polling stations opened.
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, going by the headlines it certainly sounded as he might be so it is reasonably to assume that at least a few people might have been convinced.
Last night Nigel Farage won a safe Labour seat by just 6 votes.
Please don't tell me that Tony Blair, handsomely paid advisor to governments and heads of state across the world, hadn't considered the possible negative effect of generating headlines which would appear to be critical of a Labour government hours just before an important election.
So what is he up to?
So what is he up to?
That is some conspiratorial thinking, right there. You've decided (with apparently no need of any evidence) that there's a plot lead by Blair for some nefarious purpose that disrupts his own former party's chances of success at a local election.
Seems reasonable...
You've got to admit the timing is a little suspect.
there's a plot lead by Blair for some nefarious purpose that disrupts his own former party's chances of success at a local election.
But this time Dominique De Villepin isn't there to point it out.
You've got to admit the timing is a little suspect.
Only if you're (like many folks it has to be said) interested in there being a conspiracy. By all means settle in next to believers of a flat earth, or Area 51 if you like, there's always room for more. But I mean; at least throw up a picture of Blair standing next to Farage in the same room. That's the minimum standard on this forum.
Well his paymasters benefit from a further swing to the right. He's surely politically aware enough to know that releasing something that denigrates net zero plays to the right and should have been able to say, hang on let's leave it a week?
Happy to conclude he's thick as mince, but also see how his think tanks actions have helped his paymasters...
You've got to admit the timing is a little suspect.
Only if you're (like many folks it has to be said) interested in there being a conspiracy. By all means settle in next to believers of a flat earth, or Area 51 if you like, there's always room for more. But I mean; at least throw up a picture of Blair standing next to Farage in the same room. That's the minimum standard on this forum.
You do realise that many Labour MPs and Downing Street are not best pleased with Tony Blair's timing don't you?
Are they all flat earth conspiracy theorists from Area 51?
Is that your evidence that there's a conspiracy? That as well as you there's some MPs who also think there's a conspiracy?
I think we are screwed. I know a lot of environmentalists, professional and otherwise, I know climate protesters and people who have actively protested against air travel.
Not one of them will give up their regular flying for holidays, and lets face it they are something we like- no one ever died because they didn't get a holiday in the sun. It would be a very easy gain.
I chose not to have kids so the world only has to last another ten years or so for me, but I see people who tell me how much they love their children, and grandchildren flying several times a year. They think I'm weird for refusing to fly, they ask if I'm scared to fly or dislike going abroad (no and no)
We are not going to inconvenience ourselves to change until it directly affects us in a major way and by then it will be too late, and I don't believe we will be bothered about the places that are more immediately affected, the rich will relocate as borders were never intended to restrict them, the poor we will repel and.ignore as they die, we already do.
Is that your evidence that there's a conspiracy? That as well as you there's some MPs who also think there's a conspiracy?
I haven't made any claims at all about a "conspiracy", as far as I can see you are the only one who is talking about conspiracies.
I am questioning whether the world-renowned tactician is really daft enough not to realise that generating headlines critical of a Labour government hours before important elections is likely to have a negative effect on the party he is a member of.
Many Labour MPs and apparently Downing Street are furious whilst Nigel Farage was understandingly delighted - It could only have helped Farage win those six votes which turned a former safe Labour seat into a Reform seat.
What makes it particularly galling is the fact that Blair could have easily waited 48 hours to make exactly the same points.
Are you seriously suggesting that Blair had not thought through the likely consequences of his headline grabbing actions?
The Guardian's editorial writers clearly agree with me that Tony Blair's intervention was, quote, "a political gift to Nigel Farage"
Are they allowed to say that without being accused of being conspiracy theorists?
Tony Blair needs to go do one on himself and STFU.
He had 10+ years of golden opportunity to make a real difference to the lot for most working people - education, health, public transport, etc. But instead he decided to follow mad dog Bush into 2 wars (and a 3rd before Bush was on the scene) to the detriment of all other national issues and the lives of thousands of British armed forces personnel harmed over there, killed, injured or mentally damaged. A once in a generation opportunity pissed away.
And I say that as a Labour voter.
I haven't made any claims at all about a "conspiracy",
and
So what is he up to?
So, yeah, that'll be you suggesting that either the timing of the release of the report or the people that support the TBI are trying to scupper net zero, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of a conspiracy.
It always has been, and always will be, all about personal gain for themselves.
Not always, it hasn’t; once upon a time, MP’s quite often had actual jobs, which they had to step back from, especially if they owned a business, so there was no conflict of interest. When I worked for a small print and publishing company in Chippenham, we would do all the promotional print for our MP, who owned a print company in Yeovil, IIRC, but the rules meant he couldn’t use his own company. That was in the 70’s. As time’s moved on, more and more MP’s have gone from university, where they’ve studied law and or politics, and gone straight into politics, they have scant knowledge or experience of holding down a regular job outside of that privileged bubble.
One famous Labour MP worked as a steward on passenger liners, if I recall.
If that's the case then we need to stop rich people going on holiday first.
We could take away their passports, and confiscate their big s****y boats. We’ve already made a start with the Russians, maybe we can move on to Republicans and their billionaire buddies.
Blair. Peace in northern Ireland, Kosovo. Iraq. Shortest interval between contact with the NHS to definitive treatment ever. Choose your poison.
No. 1, not Tony Bliar but the Tony Blair Institute. 2, perhaps conflicts of interest. 3, Tony Bliar.
I haven't made any claims at all about a "conspiracy",
and
So what is he up to?
So, yeah, that'll be you suggesting that either the timing of the release of the report or the people that support the TBI are trying to scupper net zero, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of a conspiracy.
No I haven't suggested any of that, that is just something which you have made up.
I have been very clear with my comments. I claimed that the headlines Tony Blair generated hours before important elections were damaging to Labour, a claim which is widely supported within the Labour Party including Down Street.
I have also claimed that Tony Blair's intervention in the hours before the election was a political gift to Nigel Farage, a claim which the Guardian newspaper also makes in its editorial.
I then ask what is he playing at? Because I genuinely have no idea and I know that he isn't daft enough not to realise the consequences of negative headlines.
Nowhere do I say anything at all about "trying to scupper net zero". That is pretty much a straightforward lie, if you will excuse the non parliamentary language
Peace in NI was mainly George Mitchell appointed under John Major. If a British PM can be congratulated for the Good Friday Agreement it was John Major. 7 years of effort then Blair took over for the last year by which time it was pretty much in the bag.
Kosovo I'll give you with the reserve that it was achieved by bombing rather than diplomacy.
Iraq he should be behind bars for.
You need to be very careful about atributing success or failure to a particular PM in dealing with NHS waiting lists. You only have to look at a graph to see reporting methods and massaging figures have as much influence as real numbers and that the long term trend has only gone one way whoever was PM:
Blair was student fees
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7928436.stm
On a trip to the UK I watched a spitting image in which Blair bumped into Thatcher in the street, they got along very well. That summed it up for me - continuity of Thatcherism.
Then there was Middle East envoy. Could you honestly think of anyone one worse for the job ? Netanyahou maybe, but at the time he didn't have anything like the volulme of blood on his hands as Blair. Blair was predictably awful and biased in the job.
Peace in NI was mainly George Mitchell appointed under John Major. If a British PM can be congratulated for the Good Friday Agreement it was John Major. 7 years of effort then Blair took over for the last year by which time it was pretty much in the bag.
Yes John Major never gets the credit he deserves for kicking off the Northern Ireland peace process. Which under the then existing political and cultural environment was a particularly brave thing to do, and which required Thatcher, the greatest obstacle to peace at that time imo, to be removed from power.
Although continuing the peace process was obviously not quite as brave as starting it in the first place Tony Blair also deserves some credit.
Even though Blair's commitment, as no doubt also John Major's, was surely based on understanding the pragmatic reality that "military victory" over the IRA was unachievable and the stalemate had to end.
Blair's general commitment to peace and the rejection of violence to achieve goals was eventually exposed when he metamorphosed into a warmonger and he fully backed a neocon US President's illegal war. Since then he has continued to help violent despots in various countries.
I am not sure where you got the 7 years from Ed, was that a typo?
No, I just typed the time he was in office, Ernie. A quick check of Wiki says that it was from 93-97 that he took the most important intiatives towards peace process so more like 4 years.
Someone with an obvious interest in renewable energy, but I think Dale Vince makes an interesting summary.
“What evidence is there that there is a public will? Of course people will say it's important, but as soon as that involves any kind of personal cost (and it does, and the cost is probably significant) then they become much less keen.”
If there is little evidence of a public will to change it is probably because the evidence is not sought and because public opinion is influenced much more by the people who don’t want change than it is by the people who do want change.
I’m not picking on this quote, but it brings to mind that the it is the individual who is expected to change and that the change is not being led by any government.
As an example where I live people drop their 2 or 3 children off at school in huge, and I mean huge, SUV’s with v8 engines. If I had the money, I could go out today and buy a vehicle with a 7 litre engine that I could use as a family car.
Such vehicles should outlawed for domestic use, but any government who tried to do so would not be re-elected. possibly because the donations made to a political party who would oppose such a move would put so much money into their campaign fund that they’d become unbeatable. The would also be available to shape public opinion