The Labour Prime Minister took some flak but so too did those aspiring to do his job. And while the outrage flowed from the social media accounts of those who felt offended by Tony Blair’s comments, there were more than a few ‘Centrist Dads’ who, even reluctantly, would have agreed with him.

His observations on energy and net zero were particularly pointed, although not new, they would (or rather ‘should’) have given pause for thought. So, let’s ignore the knee-jerk, it’s Tony Blair so we need to disagree with him sentiments and look more closely at what he said.

In the long-term he wants to get to net zero; he thinks renewable forms of energy will be future (plus nuclear) and he thinks climate change is a real issue that should be addressed. I can’t think of many climate change campaigners/environmental lobbyists that can find fault with what he wants to see as an end goal.

It is what he said about the here and now that troubles them and we have a duty to examine why that is.

Let’s take one example, the future of North Sea oil and gas. Tony Blair correctly claimed that even by 2050 the expectation is that the UK will still be using fossil fuels, something the Climate Change Committee agree on. So, he posed the question, much to the annoyance of the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, why would the UK’s approach be to import these fossil fuels rather than produce as much as we can? There are no economic benefits for importing compared to producing. But the political signalling is what he takes aim at. To self-harm our economy in the name of climate virtue signalling is what he objects to. If that ripple of dissent causes others to question what the Energy Secretary is doing, then Tony Blair’s intervention is to be applauded.