Chris Huhne has become the first Cabinet minister in living memory to be charged with a serious criminal offence after the fall-out from his acrimonious divorce left him facing court, a potential jail sentence and the end of his political career.
Couldn\’t have happened to a nicer bloke.
So, is the next bloke at DECC going to reverse all of his idiot policies? That\’s what we really want to know.
The start is to reverse that \”legally binding\” reduction in CO2 by 80%. The second is to dismantle the whole foolish subsidy system, the third to impose a serious and correct level carbon tax. At which point the job is done.
Are we going to have a serious of Timmy questions we can answer “No” to?
“Should” ain’t “will”.
Sighs. “Series”, of course.
I’m with Surreptitious Evil.
For were the job to be done, the person doing the job would no longer have a job.
Always providing that a serious case can be made for a carbon tax, of course.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/terrifying-new-book-about-climate-change/
Tim, you are in good company. FT Alphaville has produced a blog today arguing that Huhne’s departure gives the government an opportunity to replace its idiotic energy policy with something more sensible:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/02/03/868231/dear-davey-handbrake-turn-needed/
@FC: gives the government an opportunity to replace its idiotic energy policy with something more sensible:
… but it won’t though. Ed Davey is every bit as “green” and pro bird-choppers and high energy bills as the deeply-unlamented idiot Huhne.
Pogo
I wish it were not so, but….sadly I fear you are right
GOM: the link you give tells us the “the real blockbuster, a stake through AGW’s heart” is a story in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail story is based on Met Office figures. And the Met Office carefully explains that the Daily Mail has got it wrong. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
If that’s the best argument against AGW then yes, we certainly do need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Why impose a Carbon Tax at all?
What’s wrong with Carbon?
If he’s the “first Cabinet minister in living memory to be charged with a serious criminal offence,” who was the last one (before living memory) to be so charged?
Or is this just journalistic shorthand for “I asked round the pub at lunchtime and no-one could remember one”?