From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
Green Lobby Concerned
The UK Independence Party has overtaken the Liberal Democrats as the third party of British politics, Nigel Farage declared today as he made major gains in local elections. As senior Conservatives scrambled to justify haemorrhaging support to the anti-EU party, Mr Farage said he was at the head of a ‘wave of protest’ which would permanently change the political landscape. —Daily Mail, 3 May 2013
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has declared his party is on course to change the face of British politics in the wake of its strongest performance in local elections, making a series of gains across England. In the biggest surge by a fourth party in England since the second world war, Ukip averaged 26% of the vote in council wards where it stood, according to a BBC estimate. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said his party had been “obliterated” in the South Shields byelection, where it came seventh and lost its deposit. –Nicholas Watt, The Guardian, 3 May 2013
Concerns are mounting among green groups that the UKIP surge could have a knock-on impact on energy and environmental policy, given that David Cameron is now under mounting pressure to tack to the right. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has taken a vocally anti-green stance, slamming wind farm developments and questioning whether manmade climate change is happening. Westminster observers are convinced that the growing popularity of UKIP is one of the main reasons some Conservative MPs have become more openly hostile to environmental policies. –James Murray, Business Green, 3 May 2013
The UK Independence Party’s unique selling point – the policy it is best known for – is Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. But as the party has sought to broaden its appeal beyond that single issue, it has developed a full range of policies in all areas…. UKIP is sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change and would scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power stations. —BBC News, 3 May 2013
Environmentalists, businesses and carbon market investors were watching last week’s conclave of environment and energy ministers in Dublin closely, hoping to see a plume of white smoke emerging to signal that the ministers had agreed to step in with bold support for the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). But no such signal of support came. […] Analysts as well as MEPs on the committee say that the proposal is unlikely to pass a second vote in the Parliament unless the Council comes out in favour. Even if the proposal were passed by the end of the year, that would probably be too late. –Dave Keating, European Voice, 2 May 2013
“For the first time in 10 years, Europe is no longer willing to pursue the green agenda,” said Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in a recent telephone interview with Friends of Science. Dr. Peiser was commenting on the continuing fallout from the April 16, 2013 vote in the EU parliament where a proposal to delay the issuance of carbon credits (or allowances) was voted down. “We face a new situation where the green lobby is being increasingly isolated and in a minority,” said Dr. Peiser. “They are still there but they no longer dominate the agenda nor do they have political majority in Europe.” —Environmental Expert, 2 May 2013
On April 16th the European Parliament voted against attempts to shore up Europe’s emissions trading system against collapse. The system is the EU’s flagship environmental policy and the world’s largest carbon market. Putting it at risk suggests that Europeans have lost their will to endure short-term pain for long-term environmental gain. Nor is this the only such sign. Several cash-strapped EU countries are cutting subsidies for renewable energy. And governments around the world have failed to make progress towards a new global climate-change treaty. Betting against tough climate policies seems almost prudent. –The Economist, 4 May 2013
“Shown above, Drs. Bridger and Clements test the flammability of the book.” Sad but true, mock book burnings appear to be acceptable behavior of professors at San Jose State University. In this case, Dr. Alison Bridger is doing the honors. She is proudly assisted by SJSU assistant professor Dr. Craig Clements. They disagree with the text’s content. Lousy texts get tossed in the trash every day at universities around the world. But when you make a public statement of it, as San Jose State did, you cross a line. You tarnish any legitimate climate research that institution ever does. Unfortunately, all they proved is how politics has stained the pristine world of science. —Inform the Pundits, 2 May 2013
Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings. –Heinrich Heine, 1821
===============================================================
See also Delingpole: The old order is dying. We are living in the age of Farage
He writes: And as to why this nearly wasn’t allowed to happen, I recommend this equally incisive analysis of the hard-Left propaganda techniques which have recently been deployed against Ukip. As Margaret Thatcher (not her real name, I suspect) notes in her article, the cheap shot smear techniques which have been used in this election campaign, are straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.
I have seen members of UKIP isolated this way on Twitter. The Attack Dogs cut off the support network by throwing standard accusations out, other members, frightened to be tarred with the non-existent brush remove themselves from debate. The attack dogs have then isolated their target.
The attackers go after people and not the party; people hurt faster than institutions. Direct, personalised criticism and ridicule works. It is cruel, but very effective.
The Big Three political parties are worried about UKIP. If they weren’t they wouldn’t set their attack dogs to savage the aspiring politicians and the yet to mature new boy on the party political scene.
I’ve seen it too. Experienced it as well. It’s horrible and frightening and can all too easily sap your will to go on.
=================================================================
Sound familiar?
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:46 am
/////////////////////////////////////
Richard
I am more optomistic.
All political parties have now stated that UKIP’s policies need to be scrutinised. Given the financial problems the UK is facing and the balance between deficit reduction and austerity and growth, they will in particular look at UKIP’s proposed financial stewardship.
The material point is that UKIP’s environmental stance is not a stand alone policy. They make it clear that it is costing the UK £20 billion per year to comply with the Climate Change Act which they would scrap. £20 billion per year is a large sum and on its face it would enable some element to go on deficit reduction, some on tax cuts and some on growth/less austerity. No other political party can save or source an extra £20 billion to help deal with the UK’s present financial difficulties. That is material since at the moment the main stream political parties are looking at cuts which are often measured in the hundreds of millions, only occassionally billions, and tax changes (up or down) of two or three billion. This is a magnitude less than the sum available to UKIP.
In forthcoming debates/scrutiny, UKIP will inevitably be questioned on how they propose paying the bills. They will inevitably refer to scrapping the Climate Change Act and the money that is wasted in pursuit of this. No doubt they will explain the case against windfarms and how subsiides are hitting the poor and how the carbon credit (UK floor price £16 per tonne and escalating) is hitting the competitive of industry and how it will hit the consumer in the pocket. No doubt they will also discuss shale and the revelotion that has been seen in the USA because of this. No doubt UKIP will argue that the drive for shale gass extraction is a policy for growth. It will create much short term employment, and will have future benefits much like North Sea oil and will help regenerate the North of England and will assist the competitiveness of UK industry and will help the consumer in lower fuel bills.
I do not think that the average UK citizen knows very much about the costs of the Climate Change Act, nor about the effects of the carbon credit tax imposed on UK industry which is out of kilter with the rest of the world. There will be much debate upon how all this green madness is adversely effecting the consumer and how windfarms do not reduce CO2 emissions at all. I suspect that the majority of UK citizens consider that windfarms are green, ie., actually reduce CO2 emissions. They are in for a shock when they learn that they do not reduce CO2 emissions and will not reduce global temperatures even by one thousand of a degreeC!
Debate on these issues is bound to occur and even the BBC will be forced to report. I do consider that UKIP’s success will have an impact on public perception of the green agenda and the damage that it is inflicting. In time, this is likely to play a roll in moving the political stance of other main stream parties.
Mooloo says:
May 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
I agree. Ideas will be dabated irrespective of whether UKIP can or can not realistically win any seats at Westminster, and as a consequence of these debates and public opinions, the ideas of main stream political parties may shift.
To win elections, the party must represent the middle ground. This raises two issues for the Conservatives.
First, if they were to move towards UKIP’s position would they lose more votes from people who are left of UKIP but presently support the Conservatives than they would gain by attracting voters who presently support UKIP but would move to the Conservatives if the Conservatives were to adopt some of UKIP’s policies?
Second, where does the centre ground lie? Is it the position that in fact, the centre ground in politics is more right than the main stream political parties presently assume to be the case? For example, is the centre ground occupied by those who wish to see a curbing in the wellfare state (at least to the extent that benefits do not exceed the average family income after deduction of tax), less immigration, a referendum on Europe, less interference by the state etc? If this is the case, then it will be easier for the Conservatives to move some way towards UKIP’s policies.
I consider that there is reasonable prospects that the political map will change as a consequence of the surge in UKIP’s appeal. I for one do not consider this to be nothing more than a protest vote. Indeed, even if it was, protests should be taken seriously because to ignore public opinion ultimately bites.
Nicholas in the Jerry Moonbeam Kalifnutso state:
re your post addressed to me at May 3, 2013 at 11:21 pm
And I did not say otherwise. Please read what I wrote.
Richard
richard verney:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at May 3, 2013 at 11:56 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/newsbytes-climate-sceptics-win-rocks-britains-political-landscape/#comment-1296838
It is not surprising that some – you say including you – are “more optimistic” than my post.
I tried to provide a dispassionate account for information of people not familiar with UK politics. If my attempt were successful then – depending on their personal political desires – some people would be more and others would be less “optimistic” than my account.
I think you make some good points which provide opinion on points made by me and others in the thread. I have included a link in this post so others can jump to your post from here.
Richard
OTC, it has something to do with climate policy–the UKIP has been forthright about the money that would be saved by abandoning the current Climate Change Act, as Richard Verney argues a couple of comments upthread. Its victory has already shaken things up, which is a necessary preliminary to restructuring them.
Strawman–Mooloo was not talking about these victories as though parliamentary seats were involved. He was saying that victories in local elections are harbingers of what may occur in future national elections. They are thus meaningful in that they show which way the wind is blowing. Politicians are very alert to that, so this victory will tend to make them trim their sails on policies that look like vote-losers. Here’s what Mooloo wrote:
Richardscourtney says
And he’s right too warn against over-celebration.
But it is yet another significant landmark along the funeral procession of alarmism in UK.
For the first time a party whose policies are explicitly anti-renewable energy (among other things) has won a huge proportion of the votes.
This cannot be ignored.
And in related news, two senior guys form the Department of Energy and Climate Change have jumped ship.
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=198505&title=Decc+plunged+into+%27chaos%27+as+second+senior+civil+servant+departs
Ahh…poor dears. No doubt they’ll find alternative ’employment’ with some renewable subsidy farmer somewhere….who better than they to know how best to suck on the public teat?
@wamron
Au contraire, mon brave. The difference is that they have frightened the living daylights out of all three of the ‘major’ parties…who may well conclude that their consensus adherence to European policies on climate are a huge electoral liability.
That may lead them to re-examine policies that seemed sensible and attractive pre-Copenhagen, pre-temperature standstill and pre-Climategate. But are now as enticing and sensible as yesterday’s used chip paper.
And if UKIP continue their rise, climate and energy will come more and more to the fore as a live topic.
Early in my career I was involved in an extremely interesting documentary about the European union, which lead me to investigate further and develop a nuanced view on the institution. Anti-EU sentiment to my mind is driven by the same availability bias that constitutes most CAGW alarmism. It’s no the very considerable good that the EU does that gets the attention, but the undeniable daft bureaucracy, which ironically is dafter than a lot of people realise.
I personally am absolutely no supporter of UKIP and the principles they stand for, and a lot of people worry that they are the ‘polite face’ of bigotry, and it worries me that rational skepticism of man made climate change and the pointless futile policies that follow from the alarm are going to be entangled in politics in the way it has become polarised in the US. CAGW is first and foremost a scientific issue and should not be polemical. For those of us who put social responsibility ahead of personal liberty, the consequences of irrational policy based on uncertain science is detrimental to our goals.
I would say this in fairness to UKIP, it is true they have been subject to actual bigotry of the kind that ironically people fear from them. Michael Farage’s views, and the manner he has expressed them, shows him to be an excellent politican and leader. I do not agree with most of them, but I cannot deny that they are not reasonable and more moderate than UKIPs reputation would make us think. I just think they are somewhat shortsighted.
M Courtney says: May 3, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Just to add to the confusion… these were predominately English local elections.
Not British general elections.
_____________________________________
I think you miss the point. UKIP used to be hopeless in local elections, while ‘other right-wing parties’ used to get 10x their votes. But UKIP always did much better in general elections than the ‘other right-wing parties’.* If that trend continues, then UKIP will do very well at the next general election.
All we need is a few defections of MPs from the Conservatives to UKIP. There are many Conservatives who hated David Cameron for his husky-hugging and wind turbine escapades,** and with many of his other liberal-green policies, but would not dare switch to UKIP because there was no hope of keeping their seat in Parliament. Now there is a very good chance that they can get elected as a UKIP MP, they may well be persuaded to switch. If they do, then UKIP will have a home-run at the next general election.
The other possibility is a deal between Conservatives and UKIP at the next election. And in this case, the deal would have to involve: support for the armed forces; support for grammar schools; more action against European union; and a withdrawal from all these Green subsidies.
.
* Notice the Orwellian self-censorship we have in modern UK. You are not allowed to mention certain political parties here.
** Cameron put a wind turbine on his roof, calling this the future of UK electrical generation. Yes, this is how stupid and naive our prime minister really is – he thought that an average of 7 watts of electrical generation will run a large household. Unsurprisingly, Cameron’s wind turbine did not last for more than 6 months. And THIS, was the primary foundation for UK electrical power generation for the 21st century. Can you believe the stupidity of our political classes? This is why Mr Farage, who comes across as a real laddish man-of-the-people and a realist who has not been infected with politic-speak, will go from strength to strength.
.
If you want a real laugh, please see Mr Farage savaging the EU parliamentarians about their undemocratic Communist appointments system:
Farage and UKIP are the only opposition party in the EU parliament, who will hold these undemocratic Communists to account. All of the top posts in the EU are held by Communists and Marxists, like Manuel Barroso, the president of the EU:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Manuel_Barroso
this Irish journalist – a China specialist for various MSM – has a way with word, like Farage, but she does goes downhill after the excerpts below:
3 May: Guardian: Jennifer Duggan: Is China really a climate change leader?
A new report portrays China as a leader in tackling climate change but its emissions are still rising dramatically
China’s environmental woes have attracted a lot of attention internationally since the start of the new year. Air pollution was first up in January as levels in a number of cities, including the capital Beijing, hit lung clogging off the record levels. Dubbed the ‘air-pocalypse’, hazardous smog left air pollution left cities enveloped in a thick layer of smog.
And just last month water pollution took an unusual form in Shanghai after thousands of dead pigs were found floating in the city’s main river which provides drinking water for up to 20 per cent of the city’s 23 million residents. Concerns have also been raised about dangerous levels of soil pollution after heavy metals were found in soil samples.
China’s environment has suffered to help fuel its record-breaking economic growth. Its coal-powered factories and power stations pump out thick clouds of soot making it the world’s number one emittor of greenhouse gases.
With its posionous air, water and soil, it is hard to see China as anything other than an environmental villian but a new report portrays it in a different light, as a leader on tackling climate change. The report ‘The Critical Decade: Global Action Building on Climate Change’ was carried out by the Australian Climate Commission…
The Climate Commission report portrays China in a very complimentary light but it does state that China is reducing its “emissions growth” – meaning China is still increasing its emissions, just not as quickly as previously.
To put these increases into context, another study published earlier this year by consultancy firm Ecofys for Greenpeace estimates that
“China’s five northwestern provinces plan to increase coal production by 620 million tonnes by 2015, generating an additional 1,400 million tonnes of CO2 a year, almost equal to Russia’s emissions in 2010″.
So which is it? Is China a leader on tackling climate change or one of the biggest contributors? The truth is both…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/chinas-choice/2013/may/02/china-climate-change-leader
also, as funny as Farage can be, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, is in a spot of coal bother:
3 May: Australian: Leo Shanahan: Greg Combet said he was ‘entitled to trust’ ex-union boss John Maitland over NSW mine
The licence allegedly delivered Mr Maitland and other investors, such as Newcastle businessman Craig Ransley, a $48 million profit when the licence was subsequently sold to NuCoal in 2010. No training mine was ever built.
It is alleged Mr Maitland personally turned a $165,000 investment into $14 million.
Mr Combet, a former ACTU secretary, said he trusted Mr Maitland as someone he had dealt with in the union movement for many years and was supportive of the training mine to address the skills shortage in the region…
Mr Combet was asked by counsel assisting the commission Peter Braham SC whether he would have supported the mine if he knew “it would only train 25 new miners a year” and would be extracting “90 million tones coal” as a commercial mine in three years.
“No … (my) support was for a training mine,” Mr Combet said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/combet-trusted-unionist-john-maitland-over-a-training-mine/story-e6frg6nf-1226634559262
Those commenting from the UK are now starting to realise what the results mean. The vote for UKIP will realign British politics. Whether or not the population voted for them because of their policies or in protest against the other political parties the outcome will be the same.
First, the Conservative party are going to have to shift further to the right if they want to regain cohesion in the general election in 2015.
Second the Labour party will wish to be the centre ground and try to sweep up disenfranchised conservatives and Lib Dem supporters moving slightly more to the right than they are now. This will cause a split between the hard left support, the Unions the financial base and New Labour. They have a year to square this before the run up to the election or they face an unasailable task of gaining a majority vote.
Third the Lib Dems are now fractured internally and humiliated externally, they need a new leader and soon. If they now do not stand against coalition policy that will move towards the right then they will disintigrate. If they do stand against the policy they may have to leave the coalition and force an early general election, which given their current standing would be disasterous for them but also for the other parties.
Fourth UKIP will ride the wave and do fantastically in the European elections next year. As for the general election in 2015 their fate now relies upon the direction that the Conservatives take. If the Conservatives don’t adjust to the right then they will be a force in the general election. If the Conservatives do adjust to the right then their support will dwindle.
The outcome of these local elections, the people want a shift in politics to the right and away from Europe. The message to British political parties…. ignore this at your peril. Politicians think that we the British people are here to be led and directed as it has been for a long time, UKIP is our baseball bat, come and preach to us…. I dare ya!
jim says:
May 3, 2013 at 11:39 am
“regarless?!?!? The north pole is open water for the first time in 200 million years!
go figure!”
Every CO2 molecule is a tiny mirror floating in the air, sending heat rays to Earth.
As a long time member of UKIP, I am very pleased for the success in the county elections in england this week.
UKIP are a plain, simple speaking party that believes in small Government, democracy and independence.
Obviously this does not fit well with people who accept what the three large failed parties in the UK believe in and say.
They all want to remain within the EU club, keep the EU law above UK law, which means we have to obey all of the stupid climate change nonsense.
The EU and its subset organisations prevent the UK from ejecting foreign criminals back to their home country!
But it is not all the EUs fault. UK politicians dreams up the CLimate Change Act, the most expensive bit of law ever to be introduction into the UK.
David Cameron, surrounds himself with advisors who all went to the same school as he.
British politics has been waiting for a shakeup like this for years.
British people are very happy.
Until a few years ago I would have been a life-long Conservative voter. But no longer. I’m now proud to be a UKIP voter. Here are a couple of reasons why:
1. I want Britain to be a free and democratic country that makes its own laws.
2. I will never vote for any party whose policies are designed to push up the price of energy in the name of the global warming cult.
There are other reasons e.g. their opposition to wind farms and possibly opposition to the green renewables nonsense in general, and support for shale gas and nuclear.
In this week’s local elections UKIP scored a notable triumph. They will almost certainly do even better in next year’s European elections. Even if they never form a government they may well have a very beneficial influence on future government policies in the areas of immigration, Europe and – very important – climate change and energy policy.
At last, a glimmer of hope….
Chris
Ukip listened to people and then formulated policy. The others try to bend people to their crackpot policies.
Ukip is also against wind farms and other useless forms of ”renewables”. They are now in a position to block future wind farm developments through local councils.
That is a start.
pat says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:19 am
“this Irish journalist – a China specialist for various MSM – has a way with word, like Farage, but she does goes downhill after the excerpts below:”
It is difficult to say whether she doesn’t know the difference between CO2 and soot or whether she is deliberately obfuscating. I guess you don’t have to be a doofus to work for the Guardian but it sure helps a lot.
Agnostic says:
May 4, 2013 at 1:35 am
“It’s no the very considerable good that the EU does that gets the attention, but the undeniable daft bureaucracy, which ironically is dafter than a lot of people realise.”
“CAGW is first and foremost a scientific issue and should not be polemical.”
Well, a defender of the EU would say that, wouldn’t he; as the EU expends billions of Euros into producing global warming “science”; thus his beloved EU would easily be able to overwhelm any number of skeptics with more “science” made to measure; more computer output than could be refuted in a lifetime; together with “scientists” like Schellnhuber who redefine science itself the way they need it.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/transdisciplinary-concepts-and-methods/project-archive/eyes
This way the EU politbüro can dominate, keep the skeptics busy, and continue taking all the resources they want to take; continue to rule with impunity while the continent turns into a wasteland.
“very considerable good that the EU does” – remind me, what was the youth unemployment rate in Spain? You say it would be WORSE without José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy? Well it wouldn’t be twice as bad, as 120% percent youth unemployment is a mathematical impossibility.
JabbaTheCat 1:17:
Yes UKIP came fourth in numbers of seats, but third in numbers of votes. UKIP’s support was fairly evenly spread while LibDem support clusters mainly in the South-West. It’s the way the system works; you get 23% and 147 seats while the Conservatives got over 1000 seats on 26%. Still 147 up from just 8 is quite impressive, and good news for sceptics.
Agnostic 1:35am:
Mr Farage’s first name is Nigel, not Michael.
Re Roger Nights
But Roger.they dont have ANY members of parliament!
Council elections in the UK are only relevant in indicating preferences between the parties people vote for at parliamentary elections. People vary their voting habits in council elections in many ways. Then at the next parliamentary election they vote for a major party. Council elections have long provided “successes” for fringe parties, such as the BNP or even joke parties such as the Monster Raving Looney Party (for Americans, its actual name). In one council election a gorilla was elected!
If Conservatives saw people vote Labour in a council election they would worry. If they see people vote UKIP, further right than Labour they dont need to worry…because the only way those UKIP voters can keep out their Labour candidate at the next parliamentary election is to vote Conservative. They know that UKIP voters know that a UKIP vote will let Labour candidates win. So they can rely on those who voted UKIP in a council election to vote for the Conservatives next time.
These Earth shattering changes mean absolutely nothing.
UKIP is also taking votes from Labour.
A likely scenario at the next General Election is for UKIP to take from both parties giving them the balance of power and Lib Dems relegated to an irrelevant 4th place.
Even if Labour then has most seats a Tory/UKIP Coalition could then ensue giving us a better solution that the current Tory/ Lib Dem arrangement.
So people need not be afraid of voting UKIP to avoid a Labour majority. Tory and UKIP combined would be able to block and frustrate any unwanted Labour insanities even if they did not form a coalition.
People should always vote for their first preference and should not vote tactically. The system works best without tactical voting but of course at the moment Tories want to use fear of Labour to bring voters back to them.
Hopefully the electorate will see through that.
Friends:
I am writing this in hope of helping non-British readers of this thread.
In my post at May 4, 2013 at 12:40 am I wrote
As demonstration of that I cite posts by Richard Verney and Wamron.
Non-Brits may be surprised to learn – and may have difficulty understanding – that they are both right. I commend those seeking to understand the discussion in this thread to read both, and I provide links to the two posts to assist this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/newsbytes-climate-sceptics-win-rocks-britains-political-landscape/#comment-1296838
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/newsbytes-climate-sceptics-win-rocks-britains-political-landscape/#comment-1296968
Richard
I have to agree with Richard Courtney and others.
Protest votes in local elections are common and don’t usually last until general elections. The voting system in any case is seriously biased against smaller/growing parties.
The voting for UKIP was based almost entirely on immigration (and a general contempt for the mainstream parties). No mainstream party has any serious policy to limit immigration (and their adherence to the EU means that they could do little anyway).
The Tories will make enough anodyne noises to neutralize the UKIP vote at a general election – eg non-binding promises of “re-negotiations” with the EU or, if they have to, a suitably rigged referendum in which all the main parties and the entire media will scaremonger their way to remaining in the EU.
Unfortunately, although UKIPs energy policies are a big deal for most of us here they played almost no part in the media debate and I doubt that most people who voted for UKIP could even list them with any degree of accuracy.
Because of this, and given that all the other main parties are as gung ho for CAGW as the EU they bow down to, don’t expect UKIPs energy policies to have much if any influence.
The other parties might make noises about modifying their attitudes to immigration or the EU (without actually doing much) but they won’t do even that about energy.
It’s when the lights start going out that energy will leap up the agenda, not UKIPs almost unnoticed, at the moment, energy policies.
Wamron: Your scenario is what the Tory’s are desperately hoping turns out to be true, but there’s precedent that suggests it may not be. Consider the Canadian elections of 2011 – the ideology of the parties is different, but there is an overall similarity between the position today’s English Tories find themselves in and the position that the Canadian Liberal Party (a center-left party that considered itself the “natural” governing party.) The Canadian liberals were sure that the rising New Democrat party under Jack Layton could be managed, and would maybe just be a junior partner, or failing that, people would know not to elect Harper’s conservatives by voting for the more extreme New Democrats.
What happened? Canadians were sick to death of the Liberals due to a generation of high handedness and mismanagement, and voters went to either the New Democrats or to the Conservatives. The Liberals had their worst showing in a century, and the party they opposed, the Conservatives, took firm control of the government.
The same think could happen to the Tories if they don’t come up with some way to co-opt the UKIP. And Cameron may not have the political stones to do that. I wonder if he realizes that Farage and his followers would gladly take down a Tory government just to get a scalp to hang on their belt. In their thinking, after another Labour government presides over even a greater decline, they will be poised to emerge victorious. It’s a plan to win everything by Letting it All Burn. Dangerous, but for those with no power at all always an attractive option.
Similar history to the UK. The Liberal Party befriended the fledgeling Labour Party in 1906, and even came to an arrangement whereby certain seats were allocated to the Labour Party. Won the 1910 elections with Labour and Irish support. Elections due 1915 postponed because of the war, and then won the ‘coupon’ election in 1918. Formed coalition government with Conservatives, but Lloyd George was pushed out, replaced by Bonar Law. At the 1922 election the Conservatives won a majority but this only lasted just over a year. The 1923 election resulted in another hung parliament, and Labour provided the government although they were the largest party. As the Conservatives after Bonar Law’s death had, at the instance of Baldwin, changed from a “Free Trade” party to a “Protectionist” party, they could not expect support from the Liberals, who remained staunchly “Free Traders”. The Labour Party had more seats than the Liberals, who have never had a look in since, till the latest election.
The absurd nature of the UK electoral system was shown in the 1983 election. The Labour party got 27.58% of the vote the Liberals got 25.38%. Labour won 209 seats, Liberals won 23!
Signed – “Disgruntled Liberal”