He presented a case that could have been apocryphal but one worth repeating as the lessons still apply today, so I’ll repeat it.

Seeking election, politicians asked voters what they wanted done. Overwhelmingly they replied, deal with the dog mess on the streets. The elected politicians responded by believing the voters really needed an economic strategy for their well-being, so spent time developing one.

The following year, they asked the same question, received the same reply. This time the politicians thought the voters didn’t really mean clear up the dog mess, and that a transport strategy was more important for them. So that’s what they spent time developing.

The third year, same question and same reply. Politicians, frustrated that voters keep saying the same thing, presumed there were more important and worthwhile actions that should be taken, so they developed an environmental strategy thinking this was a better use of their time and it was really what the voters wanted.

In the fourth year, ahead of fresh elections, they asked for votes. The reply came, “why would we vote for you, we kept asking for the dog mess to be cleared up and nothing happened.”

For the last three years, EUA has commissioned polling around home decarbonisation. Each time, when asked, the overwhelming majority (this year 96 per cent) said they would not spend more than £5000 to achieve a net zero home. Yet, what we continue to have from Ministers is a preferred option that costs households way more than this. The question must now be asked, do they actually want households to decarbonise willingly, in which case the preferred option doesn’t work or are they going to force change upon voters.

If the former, we stand ready to help identify alternative options, if the latter, we will stand by and watch the electoral tide sweep away those who ignore what voters have to say.