Shadow minister promises to send Britain forwards to the past, or sideways into the thistles, or something

From Climate Scepticism

BY JIT

I don’t know about you, but I think that if I was asked to write a few hundred words for a newspaper, I’d take great care to ensure that they made sense. Because space was limited, I’d send my best arguments into battle. And I would make damn sure that they were watertight.

That was not the case when the shadow minister for insulting the public’s intelligence, Daniel Zeichner, tried to sell Labour policy in a short piece for the Telegraph.

Now, Labour policy statements are a target-rich environment. You basically just fly over them & press the red button and you’re bound to hit something that explodes nicely. So it was with Zeichner’s try. Except with extra parsnips.

Ostensibly Zeichner was there to explain Labour’s plan for farming. (He’s actually the shadow minister for farming, not insulting the public’s intelligence.) Instead he produced the sort of screed that I characterise as “Wall of Sh1t”, in homage to Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound. This rhetorical technique is the bane of anyone trying to respond to it, because the response has such trouble getting its shoes on. It is known in some people’s minds as Gish galloping.

ASTERISK: Spector shot Lana Clarkson, and was eventually sent to jail. Divers other accusations were levelled at him. He apparently died of Covid.

Zeichner’s opening paragraphs set the scene by trying to draw a line between climate change, inclement weather, and food shortages. Last year was the hottest on record, and food inflation reached 45%. Draw a line, ingrate!

Last year’s summer harvests were threatened by drought, and this winter’s heavy rain and flooding has destroyed crops. This perfect storm has left shortages in our supermarket shelves and driven up prices.

Well, it’s not exactly a perfect storm. What actually happened last year in the UK, whose farming Zeichner will one day soon be responsible for?

The unseasonably wet and windy weather hindered the start of the harvest, with further disruption throughout August due to localised showers and heavy downpours, with progress varying regionally. Whilst conditions were milder in September, some regions still had lengthy periods of wet weather.Defra

Yes, in fact the hot and dry summer was 2022’s, but looking at the figure, I don’t see a reduction in yield then. A miserable summer in 2023 on the other hand meant that grains did not dry out fully and were poorer quality.

Not a great start, but then Zeichner segues into a version of reality that I don’t recognise at all.

Meanwhile, this Tory Government flip-flops and backtracks on net zero, failing to recognise the cost of inaction. Labour will protect families from unaffordable food by backing British agriculture, supporting farmers to reduce emissions and make their land more resilient to the shocks of extreme weather.

Well, the first bit is flat out wrong. Sunak and his chums have not flip-flopped and backtracked on Net Zero. Later on (see below), Zeichner says:

The Tories are U-turning on net zero while the climate crisis knocks at our doors.

But the allegation is unsubstantiated. How, exactly, are the government U-turning, flip-flopping, or backtracking? I wish they were. I’ve waited for a sign that they might. Sunak’s “great reset” was as much an insult to our intelligence as Zeichner’s description of it is. There was no U-turn. There was not even a turn. It was as if Sunak was driving in one of those cars that have a motorised steering wheel. Drifting towards the white line, the car politely but firmly pushed him back where he was supposed to be pointing. He stayed in the lane he began in, heading in exactly the same direction, having made a giant fuss about doing nothing. And the reset was over, vanished utterly in moments, with not even a dreg to corroborate it ever having been.

Labour will protect families from expensive food by…? Can you remember what their spokesman said? One, by backing British agriculture. Quite meaningless, I hope you’ll agree. Two, supporting farmers to reduce emissions. How is this supposed to make food cheaper? How are those electric tractors, which obviously cost more and do half as much work as the existing ones, going to make food cheaper? How is reducing the input of fertiliser going to make food cheaper? If Labour want to reduce farm emissions, it will make food more expensive. But Zeichner blandly argues it the opposite way around, as if no-one will notice. Three, make their land more resilient to the shocks of extreme weather. How, exactly? How do you make a field of wheat resistant to a thunderstorm?

There follows some stuff about farm payments. It would be fair to say that I have lost track of the state of play on these. I followed the debate for a time after Brexit, but have to admit that my eyes eventually glazed over. It’s a bit like live animal exports. About two decades ago I developed the idea that it had been banned after some horror stories brought the matter to the public’s attention. Recently I discovered that it had been going on unchecked all that time. It is now finally going to be banned.

We must also decarbonise the farming sector. That is why Labour will switch on Great British Energy, a new publicly owned company that will bring together public and private investment to harness clean home-grown British power: wind, wave, solar and nuclear. That means cheaper bills for our farmers.

We must also support farmers as they diversify their income streams and make use of land that is not suitable for food production – by enabling them to build renewable energy and plug into the National Grid faster.

“Must” we decarbonise the farming sector? Only if we want to partake like it’s 1799. And let us not bear this pretense that the proliferation of renewables is going to make anyone’s bills cheaper. (There may be bribes for some of us.) Perhaps Zeichner might like to consider how his party’s plan to triple, or is it quadruple, solar on prime agricultural land is going to increase food security or decrease food bills? No, we can’t go there. No-one of importance is willing to bell that particular cat.

Zeichner winds up with gusto, as if he is talking to the faithful at the party conference:

The Tories are U-turning on net zero while the climate crisis knocks at our doors. They are rowing back on climate commitments while our farmers’ fields are waterlogged and inaccessible. And they are stalling on protecting nature and farmland while family food bills go through the roof.

Labour is the party that will deliver for rural Britain. Our plan will protect the land, support farmers and bring down bills. With Labour, Britain’s rural communities will get their future back.

Pah. Your plan does not protect the land. It involves carpeting it with solar farms, wind turbines and pylons. Your idea of supporting farmers is to force them to reduce inputs and into the use of inferior technology. Rather than bring down bills, you are going to force them up.

This does not promise that rural communities will get their future back. It more likely presages the entire country getting its past back. But I’m not talking about going back to last year, or two decades ago. I’m talking about going back two hundred years, unless someone cries

“Enough!”

The country is getting battered by the incumbent Conservatives, and Labour’s offer is a bigger stick and a lusty arm.