Re: Not the Met Office's fault.
"I believe there are dark (i.e. probably political) forces behind this".
Not necessarily - unless you believe (plausibly enough, I'll admit) that all political forces are dark. The trouble is that meteorology, like many other important fields of practical knowledge, is simply not well enough understood to serve as a reliable basis for large-scale political action.
I'll cite you another two fields of knowledge in which charlatans and blowhards have been sounding off officiously for decades, yet which no one really understands yet because they are just too complicated. Nutrition and economics. In both domains there are famous, well respected, very highly paid individuals whose voice is as the voice of God, and to whom everyone listens deferentially. Worst of all, governments act on those people's recommendations - whether naively or cynically is anyone's guess.
In nutrition, there is huge anxiety over the so-called "obesity crisis" in Western nations (and increasingly elsewhere, as Western lifestyles spread). Since the 1970s the prevailing orthodoxy has gradually set like concrete: overweight and obesity are caused by eating too much and exercising too little. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and so on. Well, in the last few years a growing number of scientists have started to notice that there was never any actual evidence to support the view that cholesterol and saturated fat are bad for you, and you must eat whole grains and vegetables to be healthy. The very scientists who stated those things in ringing tones - and eventually got governments to parrot them - were contradicting the results of their own experiments and surveys, which showed nothing of the kind. No one really knows whether the Atkins diet, for example, is good, bad, indifferent, or what. But if you look around, in the media and the interwebs, what you will find is huge numbers of completely unqualified "experts", all relentlessly preaching their particular dogmas.
In a recent radio talk, the estimable Will Self suggested that finance is actually a religion - and, what's more, the dominant religion in the West. What is certain is that finance and economics are other domains pervaded by arbitrary dogma, most of which is selective and partial at best, and flat wrong at worst. Fifty years ago I first heard the remark that, for every world-class economist who preaches a given point of view, one can easily find another world-class economist to call him a gold-plated liar. As well as the sentiment, with which we can all sympathize, that if all the economists in the world were laid end to end it would be a very good thing. Ever wonder why economists and financial gurus are always listened to with silent respect, even though they all disagree and none of them can predict anything? It's a religion! (And a very good living - see Norbert Haring's excellent book "Economists and the Powerful: Convenient Theories, Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards".
Unfortunately, most human beings are very bad indeed at suspending judgment. We don't want tentative hypotheses, ongoing experiments, cautious suggestions. Instead, we want certain, concrete knowledge followed by fast, decisive action - right now! Businesspeople and politicians are among the worst offenders in this respect: they like to do stuff, not ponder while credibility and votes trickle away. As George McGovern notoriously told doubtful nutrition scientists back in the 1970s, "we Senators don’t have the luxury that a research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in". So they hastily and superficially sample opinions - foolishly giving more weight to the "good and the great", scientists who have long passed their sell-by date and no longer do much (if any) active research, and whose ideas have fossilized as a result. And, of course, those scientists who are shrillest and most insistent in presenting their conclusions are all too often the ambitious rather than the talented and persistent.