Kemi should make Rishi Sunak shadow chancellor. Two reasons:
Firstly, whoever the current shadow chancellor is, I don't think he or she has made much of an impact (I think it's someone called Chris Philp, at least, I know there is someone called Chris Philp, or a similar name, in the shadow cabinet, although I don't know anything about him).
Secondly, I believe that between now and the time of the next election, AI will become a much bigger political issue, and that there should be someone in the shadow cabinet who knows something about AI, and who else is there apart from Rishi Sunak?
Long before 2050, we will have created superintelligent AI, which will probably either kill us all or solve all our problems. Either way, climate change won't be an issue. The same applies to all the other "problems" that we "need to tackle" before 2040, 2050, 2070, 2100 or whenever. The exponential growth of the power of AI means it's really the ONLY issue anyone should be concerned about, in a time horizon of more than a few years ahead.
The UK accounts for less than 1% of global CO2 emissions, so the effect on the climate of the UK achieving Net Zero will be unnoticeable.
We could stop global warming if we wanted to - but the Green Party, and the environmental movement in general, is opposed to doing anything that would actually make a difference:
Almost everything that comes under the heading of "Net Zero" seems wrong-headed, from an environmentalist point of view. For example, burning "sustainable" wood pellets in our power stations instead of natural gas - the wood comes from chopping down forests in North America. Burning the wood generates CO2 and shipping it across the Atlantic generates more CO2 but it's "sustainable" because wood is a "renewable" resource - you can grow more forests (very slowly). Many such cases! To tackle climate change we need to be ambitious and move fast, not create endless pointless rules to fool ourselves into believing we're doing something effective when we're not.
This doesn't change my opinion of the Green Party since they oppose everything.
My point is that I think the Net Zero target was always bound to lead to this kind of "greenwashing". A problem with target-setting in general is that the government sets a target - believing that in doing so it has taken the most important step in tackling the problem - then engages in tricks to "meet the target" (or abandons the target as it looms closer).
I believe that setting the "Net Zero by 2050" target in the first place was a bad idea, since a target provides the psychological feeling of having solved the problem, but the history of government targets shows they rarely work.
Lucky they that the Greens have always looked to understand the science, and then applied root cause analysis and related tools, and used that to develop actual plans to implement their policies and hence achieve near zero emissions.
Which is why, as someone who gets paid to deliver complex projects, I was impressed and decided to join them back in 2013.
I cannot take the Green Party seriously because your party is opposed to nuclear power (among many other reasons). I believe that had the West not stopped building nuclear power stations after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, we would now have much cheaper energy, and far lower carbon emissions. I'm actually furious with the "environmentalists" who kept the world on the path of fossil fuel dependency by spreading hysteria about the dangers of nuclear power.
And if you personally are concerned about "the eventual collapse of global civilisation" then I wish you would educate yourself about the risks of developing superintelligent AI. I'm only aware of three MPs who have expressed concern about the risk of human extinction (and the extinction of all other life on earth) if we keep increasing the capability of AIs to the point where humanity loses control over them: Rishi Sunak, Darren Jones and Dawn Butler. Most politicians seem to be completely ignoring both the many dangers and the potential extraordinary benefits of AI and wishcasting that AI is just a bubble.
The scenario below was published in April 2025, written by people who had previously had success in forecasting the development of AI. The authors now say that their median prediction for the development of superintelligent AI is 2030, not 2027 (I think due to the physical constraints of building enough power plants, computer chips and data centres), but something like this is what you should be worrying about, far more than you should be worrying about climate change:
But first, what does ‘good’ look like? Perhaps history can give us a clue:
After 1979, Labour did not regain power for 18 years and four general elections. {and 3 leaders: Foot, Kinnock, Blair (I'm not counting John Smith because of his untimely death)]
After 1997, the Tories did not regain power for 13 years and three general elections [and four leaders: Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, Cameron]
After 2010, Labour did not regain power for 14 years and four general elections. [and three leaders Miliband, Corbyn, Starmer].
If we think of Badenoch as being in the position of Foot, Hague and Miliband then her leadership is part of the catharsis that any party losing an election has to go through. In the end the adults in the Party regain control and ensure that the members don't choose a batty extremist as leader.
On the other hand, in those situations, the incumbent government was busy implementing fairly radical programmes of change that the country wanted. Starmer's failure (and that of Sunak), while sticking to 'sensible' status quo policies, would suggest that the country needs a significant change of policy to the current one.
Rather than take the low hanging fruit of ex-tory LibDem seats - and isn't 50 of them a required start? Kemi seems eager to write them off and move the party further right. Vacating the centre entirely, excluding moderate Tories
Interesting read. There is a place for a centre-right, pro-market (different to pro-business), lower-tax, lower-spend party that's laisse faire on social issues. I just don't see it in Kemi and co.
Yes, fundamental change 1 is she anchored the party on some issues, but those will cost them even more votes, like wanting to get out of ECHR.
Raising higher rate threshold to 60, get rid of 100k/ 60% marginal rate good. Tax cuts are "easy" when spend cuts are not considered. What gets cut to pay for these? The big ones are political hot potatoes - Triple Lock, etc.
Welfare (three year freeze and restrictions on eligibility), aid, higher education, a slower pace on Net Zero, asylum spending. Restoring civil service numbers to 2016 levels. Many options.
I'd personally also end the triple lock and freeze the state pension for three years alongside benefits, but I sadly think you're right that is too big a political hot potato for the right (shame Labour hasn't done it, given almost no-one over 65 votes for them anyway).
It's a surprise for me how much Labour cossets the >65 crowd, a group that won't vote for them. And to make it worse, they decided to antagonize those who do vote for it.
Kemi should make Rishi Sunak shadow chancellor. Two reasons:
Firstly, whoever the current shadow chancellor is, I don't think he or she has made much of an impact (I think it's someone called Chris Philp, at least, I know there is someone called Chris Philp, or a similar name, in the shadow cabinet, although I don't know anything about him).
Secondly, I believe that between now and the time of the next election, AI will become a much bigger political issue, and that there should be someone in the shadow cabinet who knows something about AI, and who else is there apart from Rishi Sunak?
I think he'd be good at it, but sadly too tainted by his time as Prime Minister for electoral purposes.
"As an aside, on energy, they should talk about cheaper energy costs rather than ditching Net Zero."
Looks like Kemi isn't listening to Edrith, and instead is committed to accelerating societal collapse.
Net Zero is a stupid idea for multiple reasons.
Long before 2050, we will have created superintelligent AI, which will probably either kill us all or solve all our problems. Either way, climate change won't be an issue. The same applies to all the other "problems" that we "need to tackle" before 2040, 2050, 2070, 2100 or whenever. The exponential growth of the power of AI means it's really the ONLY issue anyone should be concerned about, in a time horizon of more than a few years ahead.
The UK accounts for less than 1% of global CO2 emissions, so the effect on the climate of the UK achieving Net Zero will be unnoticeable.
We could stop global warming if we wanted to - but the Green Party, and the environmental movement in general, is opposed to doing anything that would actually make a difference:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/we-can-already-stop-climate-change
Almost everything that comes under the heading of "Net Zero" seems wrong-headed, from an environmentalist point of view. For example, burning "sustainable" wood pellets in our power stations instead of natural gas - the wood comes from chopping down forests in North America. Burning the wood generates CO2 and shipping it across the Atlantic generates more CO2 but it's "sustainable" because wood is a "renewable" resource - you can grow more forests (very slowly). Many such cases! To tackle climate change we need to be ambitious and move fast, not create endless pointless rules to fool ourselves into believing we're doing something effective when we're not.
Just to take one point, the Green Party has never supported Drax - e.g. this from 2018.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/16183589.former-green-party-leader-natalie-bennett-joins-york-drax-protest/
This doesn't change my opinion of the Green Party since they oppose everything.
My point is that I think the Net Zero target was always bound to lead to this kind of "greenwashing". A problem with target-setting in general is that the government sets a target - believing that in doing so it has taken the most important step in tackling the problem - then engages in tricks to "meet the target" (or abandons the target as it looms closer).
I believe that setting the "Net Zero by 2050" target in the first place was a bad idea, since a target provides the psychological feeling of having solved the problem, but the history of government targets shows they rarely work.
Lucky they that the Greens have always looked to understand the science, and then applied root cause analysis and related tools, and used that to develop actual plans to implement their policies and hence achieve near zero emissions.
Which is why, as someone who gets paid to deliver complex projects, I was impressed and decided to join them back in 2013.
I disagree.
I cannot take the Green Party seriously because your party is opposed to nuclear power (among many other reasons). I believe that had the West not stopped building nuclear power stations after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, we would now have much cheaper energy, and far lower carbon emissions. I'm actually furious with the "environmentalists" who kept the world on the path of fossil fuel dependency by spreading hysteria about the dangers of nuclear power.
And if you personally are concerned about "the eventual collapse of global civilisation" then I wish you would educate yourself about the risks of developing superintelligent AI. I'm only aware of three MPs who have expressed concern about the risk of human extinction (and the extinction of all other life on earth) if we keep increasing the capability of AIs to the point where humanity loses control over them: Rishi Sunak, Darren Jones and Dawn Butler. Most politicians seem to be completely ignoring both the many dangers and the potential extraordinary benefits of AI and wishcasting that AI is just a bubble.
The scenario below was published in April 2025, written by people who had previously had success in forecasting the development of AI. The authors now say that their median prediction for the development of superintelligent AI is 2030, not 2027 (I think due to the physical constraints of building enough power plants, computer chips and data centres), but something like this is what you should be worrying about, far more than you should be worrying about climate change:
https://ai-2027.com/
But first, what does ‘good’ look like? Perhaps history can give us a clue:
After 1979, Labour did not regain power for 18 years and four general elections. {and 3 leaders: Foot, Kinnock, Blair (I'm not counting John Smith because of his untimely death)]
After 1997, the Tories did not regain power for 13 years and three general elections [and four leaders: Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, Cameron]
After 2010, Labour did not regain power for 14 years and four general elections. [and three leaders Miliband, Corbyn, Starmer].
If we think of Badenoch as being in the position of Foot, Hague and Miliband then her leadership is part of the catharsis that any party losing an election has to go through. In the end the adults in the Party regain control and ensure that the members don't choose a batty extremist as leader.
It's certainly possible.
On the other hand, in those situations, the incumbent government was busy implementing fairly radical programmes of change that the country wanted. Starmer's failure (and that of Sunak), while sticking to 'sensible' status quo policies, would suggest that the country needs a significant change of policy to the current one.
Rather than take the low hanging fruit of ex-tory LibDem seats - and isn't 50 of them a required start? Kemi seems eager to write them off and move the party further right. Vacating the centre entirely, excluding moderate Tories
Interesting read. There is a place for a centre-right, pro-market (different to pro-business), lower-tax, lower-spend party that's laisse faire on social issues. I just don't see it in Kemi and co.
Yes, fundamental change 1 is she anchored the party on some issues, but those will cost them even more votes, like wanting to get out of ECHR.
Raising higher rate threshold to 60, get rid of 100k/ 60% marginal rate good. Tax cuts are "easy" when spend cuts are not considered. What gets cut to pay for these? The big ones are political hot potatoes - Triple Lock, etc.
Welfare (three year freeze and restrictions on eligibility), aid, higher education, a slower pace on Net Zero, asylum spending. Restoring civil service numbers to 2016 levels. Many options.
I'd personally also end the triple lock and freeze the state pension for three years alongside benefits, but I sadly think you're right that is too big a political hot potato for the right (shame Labour hasn't done it, given almost no-one over 65 votes for them anyway).
It's a surprise for me how much Labour cossets the >65 crowd, a group that won't vote for them. And to make it worse, they decided to antagonize those who do vote for it.
Bonkers.