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?
Correction: Sentence “The 1923 election resulted in another hung parliament, and Labour provided the government although they were the largest party.” should read:
“The 1923 election resulted in another hung parliament, and Labour provided the government although the Conservatives were the largest party.”
Nowhere above did I say that UKIP would form the next govt, I merely suggest a plausible scenario whereby they hold the balance of power and the moral high ground in 2015.
Denigrating the 25% of voters that chose UKIP is no longer a ploy available to the other parties.
Whilst LIB/LAB/CON fight over their common perception of where the centre ground lies and jostle one another for prime position, the electorate is moving away from the outmoded fin de siecle policies that those parties perceive defines that position.
Nigel Farage had the full attention of the electorate over Europe and Immigration, but very cleverly imho held back on pushing the card that is the UKIP Energy and Climate Change manifesto and now has the distinction of being the prime, and as yet only, occupier of that niche.
Cameron, Clegg, Milliband and their parties are all so heavily implicated in the AGW scam that they cannot change horses now without admitting that UKIP are right.
UKIP can now hold back that card for a time of maximum effect.
As Dr.Roy Spencer shows, April gobal warming at a miniscule 0.1C despite rising CO2 makes the disconnect even more obvious and the all party policy of ever increasing energy bills a gross error of judgement.
2015 is two years away – enough time for the final calamitous fall in AGW belief and for a scandalised electorate to punish the guilty parties.
And still they don’t get it on planet Westminster!
And neither does Wamron, bigtime.
But they will.
From the article: “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.”
Every time something like this appears in print, conservatives should call out the author of such nonsense. The hostility is not toward all environmental policies, but to bad environmental policies. None of us want to return to the days when walking through a center city to get to work required a change of shirts upon arrival at the office due to the accumulation of coal ash on one’s clothes, nor to the days when rivers ran full with city sewage.
But bankrupting, or in some cases starving or freezing, the people for the sake of implementing bad environmental policies is another matter entirely.
This would do more to cut the rate of the UK’s co2 output than windmills.
@DirkH
“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.”
Dude, the EU does a whole lot more (and in ways most people simply don’t realize) than organize committees to ‘fight’ climate change. None of the stuff mentioned there is anything different from what an individual government whose advise was that CAGW is a reality would do.
Spain’s current woes – are primarily a result of the global financial crisis. Up until then they were considered a model economy. But this isn’t the forum for a debate on those matters. I merely wanted to point out that taking a polarized view on the EU is exactly the same kind of delusion most of us here abhor when it comes to climate science. If all you see is waste and ineptitude, of course you are going to come to the conclusion that the EU is monolithic bureacracy of no value whatsoever. If all you read about is that the weather is worsening and that CO2 and temperatures are going up, of course you are going to be alarmed at mans effect on the climate.
It’s really only when you start digging, and trying to see both sides of the argument that you can come to any sort of balanced view. UKIPs view towards the EU isn’t balanced. They want the UK to withdraw from the EU – that’s their mandate. They don’t appreciate the stability, both political and economic, that such an institution provides its member states, in a part of the world that is historically at war most of the time, precisely because of that instability.
On the other hand, I have to credit Michael Farage for leading UKIP to a more moderate position, and arguing it patiently and articulately. I don’t believe he is correct, but he makes valid and worthy points worth listening to. It’s a fresh message, well argued, and long suffering austerity stricken voters are prime candidates for giving someone new a go.
But “minority governmemts” are commonplace under proportional representation.
Agnostic says:
May 4, 2013 at 9:33 am
“They don’t appreciate the stability, both political and economic, that such an institution provides its member states, in a part of the world that is historically at war most of the time, precisely because of that instability.”
You have got to be joking. Stabiliity the whole edifice is breaking apart, ask the Greek EU members, ask the Spanish EU members, ask the Italians, in fact ask the Germans. The last reason that Europe was at war amongst itself was due to a single institution trying to exert its will upon the populations of many nations. So we are not at war, so what did those who last fought envision for their offspring, what did they put their lives on the line for, for this state of play, why do you think that politics in many European countries are heading to the right. The EU has failed to provide stability, it’s a busted flush, time for change,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Really really not joking. You think climate change is complex, try disentangling the panoply of conflicting interests that constitute the EU. The real miracle is that has worked at all. I’m not trying to apologise for the EU….but the various forces and interests that go to make it up is really mind boggling. When you start asking how that would play out if there was no EU is when you start to realise its true purpose.
Rod says:
May 4, 2013 at 7:51 am
“… conservatives should call out the author of such nonsense. The hostility is not toward all environmental policies, but to bad environmental policies…”
Rod, no one is going to go backwards and fill London air with soot – this is taken care of. THE environmental policies – the single issue that makes up environmental policy IS CO2 in the atmosphere. Thinking sceptics bemoan the fact that other enviromental issues do not even come up on the radar! Isn’t CO2 the single danger that is going to burn up the planet and kill all its inhabitants? No, EU environmental policy IS CAGW prevention. Don’t be a “small c” conservative. The “c” in UK is so small now that it looks like a zero. Democrats in the USA are so far right of UK conservatives (or those of Europe for that matter) that it is at best a misettnomer. And we are concerned about the leftiness of Democrats. The NDP (New Democratic Party) in Canada would be right at home with UK conservatives – and you know what they say about a party or country that feels the need to put the word “Democratic” in their name (or Democrats as in Christian Democrats). Its a bit like the “sciences” that need the word science in their names to be sure people don’t think they are part of the Humanities. Oh, bother, the Humanities have become…..I’d better quit here.
“They don’t appreciate the stability, both political and economic, that such an institution provides its member states, in a part of the world that is historically at war most of the time, precisely because of that instability.”
The USSR provided stability both political and economic for a number of years but they had difficulty with the concept of democracy.
The EU provided stability both political and economic for a number of years but they had difficulty with the concept of democracy.
Spot the difference.
Agnostic says:
May 4, 2013 at 1:13 pm
“Really really not joking. You think climate change is complex, try disentangling the panoply of conflicting interests that constitute the EU. The real miracle is that has worked at all. I’m not trying to apologise for the EU….but the various forces and interests that go to make it up is really mind boggling. When you start asking how that would play out if there was no EU is when you start to realise its true purpose.”
The various forces consist of money and power, the EU is bankrupt, the books have not balanced for years and still we are expected to finance an ever increasing budget fo a bureaucracy that is self fulfilling. If there was no EU there would be less waste of public finance, there would be less of a requirement for taxable contributions from the populace. There would be more money in the economy, more economic recovery, less stagnating recession and more growth. People are not spending because the hours that they work are providing less for their families than their forefathers could. More of their income is being converted to bureaucratic excess in the name of making the lives of the many better, that the working man /woman is becoming the minority in society. When you now work your family becomes second to all the needs of institutionalised charities such as greenpeace and wwf that control the political allegiances of parties tied to the European line. We are deemed to be too well off and decadent in our lifestyles to think about the needy in the world and it has to be done for us even though most of us are struggling to maintain what we achieved ten years ago. What is missing from the requirements is will and choice and thereby ends the involvement of democracy and freedom. The EU is a cancer that is sucking the life from society in the name of society.
Another heartening sign is the out-of-the-blue emergence of a new anti-euro (currency) party in Germany. About a quarter of the voters said they’d consider voting for it later this year. A trend is emerging of opposition to entrenched consensus-elites.
@ur momisugly Agnostic
Despite having your error over Nigel Farage’s name pointed out to you, you repeat it a while later.
Because of that, tell me please, why should anyone take a blind bit of notice of anything you have to say?
Re Roger Knights – May 04 at 1004 – But “minority governments” are commonplace under proportional representation. True. But there is a difference in how the MPs are arrived at between FPTP, MMR, AV, and most of the continental European systems using a List method of attaining proportional representation. Party candidates are usually chosen by party members in their constituencies (except in Australia, where they are usually chosen by Trade Unions, Party Factions, or the “Leader”. Party members normally have the more extreme views – someone with centre of the road view doesn’t join. So with single member seats, or those where party lists are the rule, candidates tend to be more extreme (at both ends) than the overwhelming majority of the population. By contrast, where there are, say, 9 to be elected, and a party is hopeful of getting 5 or more elected in a majority of seats, it is necessary to ensure that there are candidates who “don’t frighten the horses”. For our local elections way back, candidates spoke at a Residents’ Association meeting. One Green candidate spoke well, another spoke like a ‘ratbag loony’. The first was elected, the second just failed – I think he had put so many people off!
In Ireland, both parts of Ireland were given PR using the STV. South kept it, the North did not. Enid Lakeman, in her book, commented that as a result Southern Ireland had sunk out of sight as the most peaceful nation in Europe – she compared it to the continuing unrest in Northern Ireland.
But to get back to the subject, with FPTP, you only get candidates who adhere to the Party Line. I strongly suspect that the same will apply to MMR in NZ. By contrast, with PR/STV, it is reasonable that some of the candidates will be for CAGW, others will be against. So the electorate can decide without the messy subterfuge of a ‘referendum’ where the ruling clique can, and probably will, ensure that the question is worded to favour their views. Remember Sir Humphrey explaining this to Bernard?
So, for good decisions by Parliaments re CAGW, you need to have PR/STV.
Sorry, I had got off the track a bit there. If you have an electoral system where ‘moderates’ are most likely to be put up for election and get elected, it is more likely that they will work together in a coalition government, or even as a minority government, relying on one or other of the other parties for support on any particular policy.
ADH – Correction, “(except in Australia, where they are usually chosen by Trade Unions, Party Factions, or the “Leader”. ” should read:
“(except in the Australian Labor Party in Australia, where they are usually chosen by Trade Unions, Party Factions, or the “Leader”. “
Wamron,
“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.”
They may think that – it seems intuitive – but they (and you) would be wrong.
As a small c conservative, I have seen the main parties moving closer and closer together until they appear to have merged into one amorphous hybrid. There is little difference in substance between the 3 of them – any differences are on style.
Therefore, I no longer fear electing Labour by the back door. To me it makes no difference. From what I have read on various political blogs, including conservativehome, this is the way most conservative voters feel.
Though you may be correct that the Conservative party don’t believe conservative voters will desert them at the GE, this merely suggess that any future changes of policy will be unlikely. That way of thinking will be their undoing.
Hear, hear Vince. We didn’t have to vote this time sadly but we would have voted UKIP and will do so, as always, in the EU elections next year and if nothing changes drastically we will do so again at the GE’s in 2015.
I am 53, my husband 58. We have voted Conservative since we were old enough to vote. Our children (and their partners) have continued the tradition as politics was discussed regularly as they were growing up and they recognised that traditional family life would only be upheld by a Conservative Government. Sadly this is no longer the case. If Labour wins the GE so be it, they made the financial mess we are currently in and they deserve to clean it up or, most likely, make it worse as usual. The Conservative Govt has lost it’s way under David Cameron and UKIP is the only party that holds true any values we, as a family, have for so long held dear; namely personal responsibility, for individuals but also as a Country!
For the last few years we have been jollied into national pride; the Royal wedding, the Queens Jubilee and then the Olympics. You cannot court National pride on one hand, only to crush it with the other. The EU is the one big cuckoo in the nest for ordinary people, and only UKIP provides any sort of answer to it! David Cameron’s promise of another referendum if he wins the next GE, the first of which was renaged on, is laughed at and rightly so. The old fashioned British sense of right from wrong is still alive and well; you can trick us once but we will not be fooled again.
Now if David Cameron is replaced by a true blue, rather than the red/blue/yellow (shitty brown colour) that we have now, things may be different. I can’t be the only Conservative that wishes that Farage was in the running!
Oh and by the way the ordinary people of the Country care nothing about AGW one way or another, despite the ‘Greenest Government Ever’ promises Cameron made to win votes at the last GE…whoever advises him on these matters needs to be fired as soon as!
I’ve never personally met anyone who believes in it and regularly have to explain to people that it’s down to this that they are in fuel poverty; happily the higher energy prices go the more harm it does the AGW gravy train. They are also very interested to hear just how many M.P.’s have their snouts in the renewable scam trough!
However I would be very surprised if more than a handful of voters actually voted for UKIP because of AGW itself, although it will come to be a very welcome bonus for UKIP that they are the only realist party on this issue in the future, as prices continue to rise and the elderly sadly die in greater numbers, due to not being able to heat their homes, as the cooling continues.
More power to your elbow Mr. Farage, Sir!!