A fascinating discussion with @Fox_Claire on just how democratic Net Zero is. The British people deserve a vote on whether we should keep pursuing this target to the detriment of our personal freedoms, the economy, and our safety and security as a country.

"For too long, green commitments have been prioritised over security and low prices. They need to return to the basic principles of providing cheap, reliable, and abundant power to the people." Our researcher, @NewsonTed on the need for more dispatchable power in @ConHome:

Rein in the welfare state. Properly fund and support our armed forces. It’s that simple. My latest in @ConHome 👇

The resignations of Healey and Carns should be crippling to this government. A vote of no confidence in Starmer's ability to defend the nation. What you won't hear about is Ed Miliband refusing to release funds from his Net Zero budget for defence; dooming plans from the start.

Firm power keeps the lights on when the wind stops blowing. Gas and coal have been crucial to Europe's industrial competitiveness and prosperity. It cannot be replaced with wind and solar. Nuclear is the future, but now we must prioritise whatever firm sources keep prices low.

Starmer had a simple choice. He could back defence, national security and the interests of the country. Instead, he sided with Miliband and Net Zero. For all Labour’s rhetoric, this tells us where the real priority lies. Net Zero first. National security second.

We can either pay for Clean Power 2030, damaging our security, or afford the 3% military spending target. Not both. The sooner we ditch the billions of curtailment, integration and backup costs of CP2030 to fund a coherent 21st century defence strategy, the better.

Theresa May gave a speech at the opening of the new CCHQ office last night. Former Prime Minister or not, she needs to be disowned for a Net Zero policy she still defends. @trussliz is treated as persona non grata in Tory circles while the ghost of One Nation Tory past stays.

Britain could experience food shortages if we can't get fertiliser from abroad (Net Zero means we can no longer produce enough for ourselves). Meanwhile, the government is doubling down on paying farmers to grow flowers, not food. We need to get serious on food sufficiency.

The European diet is at risk from food culture warriors. Critics of these rural banquets will tell you the food has a high carbon footprint, its non-inclusive. God forbid some of it may not even be halal! Europeans have always eaten meat-heavy meals, going vegan is unnatural.

Another example of how Net Zero is not only making energy more expensive, but it is making us less safe. With Russian aggression, Chinese spying, and Iranian overseas operatives, Britain cannot afford to continue on this trajectory.

“Schools and parents know young people far better than anyone in central government ever could. “ A blanket social media ban for u-16s is both unenforceable and unconservative - yet incredibly popular. It shouldn’t be. My latest for @ConHome 👇

So long as Britain's bills are dominated by the fluctuations of international wind patterns, we'll never achieve the cheap power we've been promised. Doubling down on intermittent power keeps system costs high. Low-cost, home-grown, and on-demand gas power is the answer.

Accurate depiction of Britain's energy policy since 2008:

How long until he tells us not to look back in anger or moderate our language? When migration-related knife crime is staring us in the face, the worst thing to do is deflect and frame dissent as far-right. We either learn from it or face the same issues time and time again.

You should be angry at how often these attacks are happening on the UK's streets. Pure, cold, rage in response to an attempted beheading can't be put out to be more of a problem than the act itself.

This is a deliberate attempt to shift attention away from the ultimate causes of high prices, above all domestic climate and energy policy. Beef, butter and milk are among the main recent drivers of continuing food price inflation. That is not accidental. Prices in these categories are rising because the economics of livestock production have deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government’s own Farming Profitability Review identifies the central pressures. Farmers face rising costs, greater regulatory and environmental obligations, weaker support and limited ability to recover costs from the supply chain. As with manufacturing and energy-intensive industry, Government policy sits behind many of these pressures. Domestic energy policy has weakened refining capacity and helped destroy the UK fertiliser sector, leaving farmers more exposed to imported inputs and global price shocks. The Government’s proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will include fertiliser from 2027, adding another structural cost to food production. Taken together, these pressures have changed the incentives facing UK farmers. Livestock production depends on long biological and capital cycles. Farmers do not make decisions based only on today’s supermarket prices. They make decisions based on expected future profitability. When that expected profitability falls, farmers reduce risk. They cut stocking rates, delay investment, shrink herds or leave the sector altogether. That is already happening. This is why the family farm tax row was so damaging. It hammered confidence in the future of the sector. Herds have been shrinking year after year for more than a decade. The Climate Change Committee wants cattle and sheep numbers to fall by 27% relative to 2022 levels by 2040. It wants herds to shrink by 8% before 2030, while demand for meat and dairy falls by 11%. Changes to land use policy, environmental permitting as part of reforms to water policy, higher costs for small abattoirs and higher fertiliser costs will do much of the heavy lifting. The public sees the price effect of policy only later. By the time beef, butter and milk prices rise sharply in the shops, the productive capacity has already been weakened. That is why blaming food price inflation on amorphous forces like climate change and global markets is so misleading. Similarly, blaming low pay and insecure work evades the central issue. Government policy has made British livestock production less viable. Until the Greens, Labour and the Liberal Democrats confront the reality that policies they champion have created price pressures, their claims about the cost of living should not be taken seriously.

Business Secretary @peterkyle is set to use London Tech Week to announce plans to take ‘aggressive’ stakes in British firms. But Britain doesn’t need a bigger state. It needs a freer market. When the state interferes, the public suffers. Me in @ConHome 👇