Oh that's going to leave a mark – Owen Paterson To Call For Suspension Of UK Climate Change Act

UK Manufacturers Sound The Alarm Over Rising Energy Costs

Owen Patterson Former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week. Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed. He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say. Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet. –Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013

It is safe to predict that no speech made by a British politician this week will be more surprising or significant than that to be delivered by Owen Paterson, a senior Conservative, who was sacked from the Cabinet last July for being too good at his job. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014

The high cost of energy could drive companies out of the UK, according to the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation.  The EEF claims that the projected 50 per cent rise in electricity prices by 2020 would harm British manufacturing. The warning follows research from the EEF which shows that rising energy costs would lead to a quarter of manufacturers considering investment overseas. —Yorkshire Post, 13 October 2014

The very idea that an advanced economy such as ours faces an energy crisis within the next few years should attract the most urgent attention of our political leaders. Yet we appear to be drifting into a situation of great seriousness because they are all wedded to unrealistic decarbonisation targets that none seems willing to revisit. Owen Paterson has begun a debate that cannot be shut down simply because it raises some difficult political questions. If this is not gripped now, then the next government, of whatever stripe, will need to explain to the country why they could have prevented the lights going out, but didn’t. –Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014

EU leaders face difficult negotiations to agree a package of climate change targets for 2030 at an end-of-October summit, with coal-reliant Poland leading objections, sources said on Friday. “The European Council will agree on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework for the European Union,” said the draft prepared for the bloc’s 28 member state leaders. But the question of “burden sharing” is central to actually closing a deal, a European source said, with sharp differences between those dependent on fossil fuels, such as Poland, compared with France and Britain which favour nuclear, and Germany which is looking towards renewables. Poland’s new prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, said earlier this month that her coal-reliant country would not rule out vetoing the high carbon cuts. —AFP, 10 October 2014

Forget QE, surely the precipitous oil price decline in the last couple of weeks will finally give the down-trodden European economy the big boost it needs. After three years of prices north of $100 a barrel, surely a big cut in Europe’s energy bill will provide a stimulus effect that Mario Draghi could only dream of? I’m afraid not. Why? Europe is overwhelmed by taxation, subsidy, over-capacity and green incentivisation plans that have conspired to make hydrocarbons a dirty and expensive source of energy. –Steve Sedgwick, City A.M., 7 October 2014

h/t to Benny Peiser and The GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 13, 2014 6:06 am

This is vaguely reminiscent of the 1930s, when GB, no doubt for honourable reasons, stuck to international arms agreements while Germany was going full steam ahead and rebuilding its military.
Just a thought.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Karim D. Ghantous
October 13, 2014 6:41 am

Yes, but we caught up very quickly, and had people like R J Mitchell, Barnes Wallace, and (later) Frank Whittle. Men very much like those are alive in Britain today, but there isn’t a war to bring them to prominence – at least, not yet! Things are changing in Britain, it’s just going to take longer than some of us would hope. UKIP has gained its first member of Parliament, our economy is just about to overtake that of France, and people can finally see that economic prosperity, not some left-wing idealistic nonsense on social justice, can bring about a society where there offers hope of more fairness. Naomi Klein may not be able to see that it is capitalism that has brought the things she say we should be switching to, but the British people really are beginning to see the vacuous bilge that is left-wing climatism.
There’s hope here, there really is.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Karim D. Ghantous
October 13, 2014 7:34 am

Well we all know how that plan worked out. I like to wonder if we could have prevented that terrible war if we (the allies) would have stood shoulder to shoulder and enforced the arms agreement that was signed by Germany at the end of WW1. Seems like it would be much easier to stop weapons build up before they are built rather than after.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Jim Francisco
October 13, 2014 8:27 am

Jim, remember that it was called ‘The war to end all wars’. After WW1 no one had the stomach to enforce it, as everyone knew what it meant – war yet again. With hindsight, it’s easy to say that we should have enforced it, but it’s similar to the way Russia is flexing its muscles a little now. War should always be avoided if at all possible. Chamberlain understood that. Unfortunately, events killed that understanding, and the red line was Poland. Odd, it would be Poland as that red line yet again! The good thing is that Russia is a shadow of its 1980s self, and doesn’t have a war chest.

chip Javert
Reply to  Jim Francisco
October 13, 2014 10:09 am

The allies drove Germany into an impossible settlement after WW1; the German response, while certainly not “reasonable”, was somewhat predictable. Britain was essentially bankrupted by the war, and her PM (Chamberlain) proved to be a moral coward, refusing to see the reality of Hitler’s actions, let alone implement meaningful responses.
Reading (German) accounts of German weakness in that period raises the possibility of appropriate intervention curtailing some German action. However, the Treaty of Paris was so fundamentally flawed that the underlying issues required (a politically unacceptable) total renegotiation to actually avoid WW2. Turns out WW1 didn’t “end all wars”; it simply brought the underlying conflict into clearer focus as the set-up for WW2.
Net net: 100,000,000 lost their lives in the two wars, roughly 65% of which were civilians.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Jim Francisco
October 13, 2014 11:50 am

I agree Big Jim about the stomach problem at the time. We should try very hard to learn from those two big disasters (WW1&2). I does seem to me that for WW1 we allowed a small problem to become large. For WW2 we allowed a big problem to occure by doing nothing for too long.

Reply to  Jim Francisco
October 13, 2014 6:37 pm

You’re right Jim. A willingness to risk a small war against Germany early on could have prevented the much larger war that occurred later. I fear Pres. Obama is going down a similar path. His stubborn unwillingness to get dragged back into a war in Iraq, even a very small war, has made it likely that we will now be dragged back into Iraq to fight a much larger war against a larger and more entrenched ISIS army. I can’t help but think of all the lives and destruction that could have been spared had we acted quickly and decisively instead of waiting for history to repeat itself.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 13, 2014 6:12 am

As it says above: ‘should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. ‘
That should take at least another decade (with luck).

October 13, 2014 6:12 am

This will be quite something to watch unfold.
One can only hope that it continues in such a manner as to revitalize the discussion in a global fashion.

October 13, 2014 6:14 am

Hmm, is this also to head of the threat of UKIP who are keen to rid the UK of all things connected with the GW scam.

October 13, 2014 6:14 am

Let us hope people listen to him and the UK finally sees sense and reverses its suicidal energy policy.
However, I have no doubt the Green Taliban will have their knives out for Owen Paterson now. We can expect a nasty and viscious series of attacks on him from the crazy zealots like the Green Party and the environmental groups.

Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
October 13, 2014 7:47 am

Already happened:
Owen Paterson proposal to scrap Climate Change Act is ‘bonkers’
Don’t bother to read it. You’ve seen it all before – from the AGW hysterics ganging up on him to the usual Guardian’s Cif personal insults and lies…Yawn.

Reply to  Sasha
October 13, 2014 8:46 am

Play in the press. Good.
I hope they huff and puff ferociously. So does Paterson. Good man.

October 13, 2014 6:15 am

There’s no mention of this on the BBC! Very strange that. And no mention on the Grauniad either. I wonder why?

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 13, 2014 6:57 am

Hear, hear! Thank you, Anthony, a million times over.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 13, 2014 7:05 am

Or, more accurately, 205,046,517 times over

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 13, 2014 9:19 am

BINGO… WUWT will go down in history as The Great Science blog that stood strong in the face of adversity. That makes you a living legend. Just sayin’

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 13, 2014 10:25 am

Very little escapes the notice of WUWT these days. It’s one reason I don’t spend much time on other blogs.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  phillipbratby
October 13, 2014 7:07 am

Same thing happens here in the US. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. is King of the Media here. Foxnews dominates the ratings war among cablenews networks. CNN and MSNBC slug it out every month for last place and to see who can fall the fastest. In the newspaper segment, Wall Street Journal, where Koonin’s and J Curry’s Op-Eds appeared recently, bests its cloest rival, the NY Times, in weekday paid subscriptions by 500,000. The NYT, CNN, and MSNBC have been shedding staff at a furious pace to stay solvent. Those trends will continue and accelerate.

M Courtney
Reply to  phillipbratby
October 13, 2014 7:09 am

It is on the Grauniad.
They have Lord ‘Dodgy Dossier’ Stern to put up a rebuttal.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 13, 2014 8:29 am

Stern does not bother with a scientific argument. He just repeats what he has been saying for years – the sort of absurd and idiotic assertions we have become so bored with. Still, what do you expect from a scientifically illiterate banker (and would-be billionaire)?

Reply to  phillipbratby
October 13, 2014 7:51 am

The BBC has ignored the story (no surprise there) but the Guardian has it here
(and it’s not worth reading).

October 13, 2014 6:17 am

May be an idea that UKIP will decide to champion, can’t see the current batch of Tories calling for it.

John Law
Reply to  oeman50
October 13, 2014 6:24 am

Owen will be a senior Minister in the UKIP Government next year.
I think UKIP energy proposals are along these lines, and include keeping the existing coal plants, which have emissions control, running until at least the new nukes are available.
I don’t think plant food is a problem for UKIP

Reply to  oeman50
October 13, 2014 7:29 am

This is the latest UKIP policy statement on Energy (8th October,2014)…
– UKIP will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy £18bn a year.
– UKIP supports a diverse energy market including coal, nuclear, shale gas, geo-thermal, tidal, solar, conventional gas and oil.
– We will scrap the Large Combustion Plant Directive and encourage the re-development of British power stations, as well as industrial units providing on-site power generation.
– UKIP supports the development of shale gas with proper safeguards for the local environment. Community Improvement Levy money from the development of shale gas fields will be earmarked for lower council taxes or community projects within the local authority being developed.
– There will be no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays.
– UKIP will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills.

Reply to  oeman50
October 13, 2014 7:39 am

There’s no ‘may be’ about it. UKIP’s Policies for People, says they:
– will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy £18bn a year.
– support a diverse energy market including coal, nuclear, shale gas, geo-thermal, tidal, solar, conventional gas and oil.
– will scrap the Large Combustion Plant Directive and encourage the re-development of British power stations, as well as industrial units providing on-site power generation.
– support the development of shale gas …
– [will grant] no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays.
[I am a bit worried about that ‘new’; does that mean old new can continue?]
– will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills.

Reply to  PhilW2
October 13, 2014 7:41 am

Great minds… Yours appeared up whilst I was typing.

Reply to  PhilW2
October 13, 2014 2:56 pm

Thanks, Phil and Mike, picture not as clear here across the pond.

October 13, 2014 7:00 am

Why has it taken so long for someone in the political network to work out what has been so patently obvious to anyone without a serious mental disorder for so many years.
All I could say would be: ‘No sh*t, Sherlock’.

October 13, 2014 7:10 am

Paterson is an ex minister sacked by Prime Minister Cameron for his insufficiently green views. I therefore don’t believe that his views will have much if any impact on the centralist London dominated politics of the UK. While it is good that someone is speaking up for common sense the lunatics continue to be in charge of the asylum.

M Courtney
October 13, 2014 7:11 am

This guy was sacked by David Cameron.
So, unless he actually does move to UKIP, it must be assumed to be mere sour grapes.
He did nothing while suckling on the teat of his Dear Leader.

Ian W
Reply to  M Courtney
October 13, 2014 7:43 am

Actually, he did he was getting his Department of Environment officials to write very much the report he is delivering now only biased toward environmental damage from ‘green’ industry. This led to stand up rows between him and the DECC Minister Ed Davey who was trying to censor and bury the Paterson’s DOE report. It was to remove the thorn in the side (or in your words the teeth from the teat) that he was sacked.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 13, 2014 7:50 am

Now there’s an image I could have done without.
Perhaps the response – and we all know what that will be, it’s begun already – will be his reason for defecting.

John Law
Reply to  M Courtney
October 13, 2014 9:13 am

He sorted out the disaster on the Somerset levels. He is a “doer” in a Westminster of spouters.

Ian W
October 13, 2014 7:21 am

Ed Milliband – Labour party leader, wrote the Climate Change Act under Tony Blair who was trying to out-green the EU (a difficult task!); so Miliband will not be able to wind back the CCA. David Cameron – the Conservative party leader, came to power on promises of out-greening Tony Blair who was trying to out-green the EU. Hence totally unreal targets have been set by Parliament ably assisted by politicians who either personally or through family connections are getting kickbacks from green ‘energy’ (cough). These politicians include Cameron and Clegg current leaders of the ‘ruling coalition’. So the (current) three top party leaders ALL have a vested interest in maintaining the CCA despite the outcome being loss of industry and associated jobs, brown outs and power cuts. Their attempts to bail out the sinking ship include trying to persuade industry with standby power generation to feed it to the grid _and_ also paying more ‘green’ industry to put out fields of diesel generators with the intention that they can be used to prop up the grid when it fails. So much for ‘carbon’ targets. This is all overseen by a rabid green liberal Ed Davey MP Minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who was the Minister who forced Owen Patterson out of office, as he was about to deliver very much the same report but as Environment Minister. All three (current) major parties are wedded to the green dream and refuse to accept it will be a nightmare – probably politically they can’t.
Into this comes the UKIP (UK Independence Party) whose main aim is to ensure UK leaves the European Union. They are the only party that appears to have a policy that bears any relationship to one that might be approved by an engineer or industrialist. A recent poll put them at 25$ of the UK vote. Only the threat of loss of political power will move the established parties now – loss of electrical power they will blame on the power companies (they are already preparing that argument).

Reply to  Ian W
October 13, 2014 7:33 am

In other words the smooth-faced creep currently heading the gummit is in a stew.

Peter Miller
October 13, 2014 7:52 am

British political party policy towards the UK’s future energy needs can be summed up thus:
UKIP: Sensible and sound economics
Conservative: Dithering and running scared now that their “green crap” policies are starting to unravel.
Labour: Four bolts in the side of the neck eco-lunacy.
Liberal Democrat: Eight bolts in the side of the neck eco-lunacy.
Greens: The full twelve bolts in the side of the neck eco-lunacy.
The current situation is dire; in a few years time rolling blackouts will be the norm in the UK and industry will be leaving the country as fast as it can.
If there is a very cold winter in the UK this year, the professional career politicians in the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties will be wriggling as fast as they can to distance themselves from the perhaps tens of thousands of deaths it causes amongst the elderly. As for the Greens, they will carry on as before, totally oblivious to rational thought and reason.

October 13, 2014 7:57 am

That precipitous decline in oil futures……
I wonder did it have anything to do with the publication of a report?
( The 32 day E-cat run at 3.2 COP. Published Oct 8th)
If true should see the end of all this Co2 nonsense.

Reply to  Twobob
October 13, 2014 10:44 am

Some people think so, but if the E-Cat works, petroleum may be the last energy source it impacts due to its use in transportation.
I think the recent decline in oil prices is due to primarily to high supply and concern about the European economy. Fracked natural gas could have a substantial impact on transportation too, I’ve noticed a couple things saying that Europe may realize that they need to frack away.

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  Twobob
October 14, 2014 6:22 am

We should all want Rossi to be right and he has a way of producing safe, abundant heat. Unfortunately wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. I’ve been following all the “real soon now” promises and they are so stale they are starting to stink of fish.

October 13, 2014 7:57 am

Energy “policy” of the 70’s in the UK brought down Govn’t. People were cold, hungry and out of work. People that did have work were mostly on strike. Streets were piled up with rubbish and the mortuaries were full. It seems the UK is heading down that path once again.

October 13, 2014 8:55 am

“..should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures.”
We will let our poor and elderly freeze to death in the dark when other countries do the same.

M Courtney
Reply to  accordionsrule
October 13, 2014 8:59 am

It is sound politics.
Why make a token gesture if the token gesture is so costly?
And how can you argue that it more than a token gesture without arguing that the whole of AGW science is wrong?
The standard riposte is “It’s the Tragedy of the Commons” but that means that Greens ought to agree with getting everyone to agree.

Chip Javert
Reply to  M Courtney
October 13, 2014 10:48 am

You incorrectly assume (democratic) governments exist to actually represent their constituents and/or solve national problems.
Well, some of this does actually happen: in the US it’s called “constituent services” and is performed by some, but not all, congressional staffs; Eric Cantor recently lost his seat because (among other things) his staff couldn’t be bothered.
However, most western governments are divided into tribes (or, better stated, gangs). Once in power, the gang exists to perpetuate the power of the gang. If /when gang self-interest aligns with public interest, you get social progress; the rest of the time you simply get gang warfare over stupid stuff like CAGW.
I doubt may “gang members” really understand, believe in, or care about CAGW – but, by god, their gang has decided to defend some obscure position to the death; admitting you’re wrong is the same as death.

John fisk
October 13, 2014 9:43 am

About time that people realised that being green doesn’t mean wearing a hair shirt. Yes use resources sensibly, yes reduce pollution but some of the “green crap” is frankly bonkers.
Bio fuel grown on farmland that should feed people, land cleared to grow palm oil to add to petrol and diesel. Shipping coal from third world dug out by children to England where we have hundreds of yrs of coal as,yet untapped , Daft hope all politicians and policy makers wake up!

John Peter
October 13, 2014 9:48 am

I live in Scotland. I have LED lamps powered by batteries as well as candles, torches, spare batteries, a large gas fire in my lounge that can heat the house with doors open and two gas bottle supplied portable gas stoves for the inevitable power cuts coming. I leart my apprenticeship studying under Ted Heath’s power cuts in the early seventies so I know how to survive intermittent power cuts coming our way. Scottish Power wants to shut down Longannet in 2017 leading to inevitable power cuts as the interconnector from England is insufficient to make up the difference and in any event England unlikely to have spare capacity unless nuclear from France and Holland can make up the deficit. It would appear that with Longannet having to function as the intermittent power producer when the wind is either not blowing or too strong, the payment provided are not sufficient to make the plant viable. Happy times. My view that UK politicians are stupid has changed to them being complete idiots.

Reply to  John Peter
October 14, 2014 5:12 am

well i read that france plans to decommission nukes and add 20% renewable to replace??? the power.
ooooh yeah..
so, upshot is france will go dark and so will uk.

October 13, 2014 9:57 am

The closure of Longannet would be utter stupidity – unless of course by making the threat the power company is indirectly hoping to impress on the Government the folly of their ways. Edinburgh does seem to be seeking to keep it open so perhaps the threat might help to concentrate minds.

Ivor Ward
October 13, 2014 10:19 am

Whenever the Government has seriously tried to take on the “People” they have lost. The three day week, the poll tax, the winter of discontent, etc. At the moment the people are the sheeple so Government is sitting pretty. One long cold winter might well change that. It does need to be this winter, before the election and not next winter, after the election though. Against my moral judgement I find myself wishing for a bitter winter almost as much as the catastrophists are praying for an El Nino and a hot summer. My pay cheque and reputation are not at stake here just my ability to stay warm and eat.

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Ivor Ward
October 13, 2014 12:15 pm

Don’t do it Ivor. Wish for a cold winter that is. I did that last year. Boy was I sorry. Now I say that if we have two more winters like the last one, I’m going south.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
October 14, 2014 5:30 am

I did read that another nasty one is expected.. maybe it’d be worth it to finally drive home how bad it could get.

October 13, 2014 10:40 am

Firstly just a day or 2 ago Australia announced the abandonment of the carbon tax and secondly Germany has abandoned its nuclear plants after the disaster in Japan.
I wonder if Cameron is now regretting his green agenda especially those parts set up by the last Labour government. Now that Germany are becoming non-nuclear powered (you cant really blame them – its a fair choice) and that they are dependent on Russia for their gas its perfectly understandable that they are turning back to coal, of which they have considerable supplies and the international market is cheap. It is however then wrong to expect the Uk to stick to such an absurdly expensive energy policy whilst Germany takes advantage and halves its energy costs. Surely this will give him all he needs to back out from this ridculous policy that could ruin the entire country.
I think he probably now regrets sacking Owen Paterson – it will be difficult for him to change direction now without ending up with egg on his face!

John Peter
October 13, 2014 10:50 am

mwh October 13, 2014 at 10:40 am
“I think he probably now regrets sacking Owen Paterson – it will be difficult for him to change direction now without ending up with egg on his face!”
This is wishful thinking. Cameron thinks of himself as knowledgeable about climate change. He was sure that the winter rain over south west England in 12/13 was caused by “climate change” and he was backed up by that Dame in the UK Met Office, doing her duty as a splendid civil servant rather than a scientist.

October 13, 2014 1:03 pm

If you look at the UK grid watch :
you see that UK is able to satisfy its demand (40GW) for energy with a 1GW contribution from France and 3.7 GW from metered wind. However the latter is taking advantage of autumnal weather , whilst for much of Sept and in the summer the contribution from renewables was only about 1GW. It is fortunate therefore that :
1. France has a stable power supply based on 80-85% nuclear and 15% hydro with additional small contributions from fossil fuels and wind and solar , giving it 6- 8 GW for export, up to 2GW to UK for example.
2. UK , having a vulnerable and rather ramshackle power supply has the advantage of liberal labour laws which attracts employers and qualified workers alike and a strong financial base which pays for about 25- 30% of public services like the NHS.
However all that is due to change :
In the UK Milliband will take Labour back to power in may 2015 , and he has promised to increase the renewables proportion , apply additional financial taxes to all financial dealings by the city of London and change the labour laws back to the way they were pre -Mrs T, apeing the union dominated legislation that has so badly affected French employment . Milliband has said that he intends to do to UK what Hollande has done to France.
Meanwhile France has an enviable power supply status , which , given fewer labour restrictions and the undoubted French genius in science , engineering and design, could allow it to topple Germany as the manufacturing power house of Europe. However according to a report that I saw at the weekend France is intending to close all its nuclear power stations and rely on hydro, wind and solar – throwing away its best industrial strength.
It is difficult to understand either Milliband or Hollande – each seems eager to throw away its country’s principal assets.
One of the most significant reports on this website in recent months , IMO, was not scientific , but the links to the economic argument of Weissbach based on the EROI principle that showed that the combination of nuclear and hydro (France) outperform coal and gas turbine (UK) and that relying on PVsolar and biomass is a quick route to economic collapse .
In the UK we have an enormous public debt and a monthly deficit that this govt has not been able to control.
To rush ahead with increased reliance on unreliable renewables is folly that goes beyond human understanding . Paterson pointed this out and paid the inevitable price.

Reply to  mikewaite
October 13, 2014 2:21 pm

Labour will not win in 2015.
In reality, there will be a hung parliament, with Ukip holding the balance of power. The result will be real and positive changes to the UK’s power sully, and an end to the absurd Green Crusade.

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  ralfellis
October 14, 2014 7:22 am

Here’s my prediction for 2015 for what it is worth:
The lights will go out this winter. The sitting government will be blamed. Everyone will forget that the energy policies have been dictated by the Labour party in the 2004 CC Act (and Lib Dems in the guise of Ed Davey at DECC) because the Cons (except Owen P who won’t be in the party by next year if he doesn’t tone down his opinions) have not spoken out against it let alone watering it down or repealing it. This, and the NHS ‘privatisation’ fears, will lose the sitting government sufficient votes to let Labour in.
The result will be a hung parliament with Labour having most seats but no clear majority. Lib Dems not significant enough to swing it. I’m marginal as to whether UKIP will have enough seats to give a majority and LAB/UKIP alliance would be as uncomfortable as a LAB/CON alliance anyway.
As the second biggest party CON could be invited to form a coalition with UKIP and any odds and sods of Lib Dems that got in by virtue of local loyalties. As part of the deal UKIP will be forced to stand down some of their EU ideals and climate policies. Their long game will be to do this to get a taste of power and show what they can do before 2020*. There will be an ‘opinion poll’ on EU but no binding referendum. No political party will succeed in leading the UK to full independence from the EU, even UKIP. There might be some leverage to force EU to give us partial concessions on stupid directives like vacuum cleaner power ratings and the in the wings stuff on e-cigarettes. The green madness will continue for at least another 5 years (or longer if the UK has a warm summer/drought/wet winter/warm summer before the next election because the politicians will point to it as proof that they need to raise more taxes and remove more liberties in order to “do something”.)
In short no change. Depressing isn’t it.
*I’m pretty sure that they will prove not to have much of a clue and by 2020 will be a marginal influence.

M Courtney
Reply to  ralfellis
October 14, 2014 7:30 am

Clovis Marcus, my view is similar but would remember the Nationalists.
The Lib Dems will implode. (Who cares?)
The Greens and UKIP will pick up a few seats and cancel each other out as potential coalition partners.
But the SNP and Ulster Unionists will determine who gets into power.
If Labour offer what the SNP want then they get in (until the next independence referendum).
Else the UU and Con Government introduces trade liberalisation of healthcare and bankrupt the NHS, as a pre-cursor to ending the welfare state.
Or… all Lib Dem and Green voters decide to keep Cameron out and Labour gets a small overall majority. Probably the best outcome, in my opinion, except for energy policy.

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  ralfellis
October 14, 2014 7:50 am

I had left the Nationalist parties out of my thinking but you could be right, however the Scots would rather eat their own pants than get in bed with the either CON or LAB after the 11th hour stitch-ups on the indyref. Not sure where the Unionists stand.
We live in interesting times.

M Courtney
Reply to  ralfellis
October 14, 2014 7:54 am

You may be right about the SNP. I’m English and don’t know their feelings.
So I agree, we will have to wait and see.
But for a second bite at the referendum cherry I have suspicions those Scot Nats would be quite flirtatious.

John Law
October 13, 2014 1:36 pm

Islington will not be affected, they will still be able to shop in their “GUM” stores, comrade

October 13, 2014 2:03 pm

There has to come a time or a politician who will see that the likes of China, India, Russia and now Germany are not interested in the AGW argument when GDP and power are at stake. How we have been so gullible to Treaties that can have no effect on the end result is beyond me. On one hand Cameron and Clegg and for that matter Milliband all want to be seen as the 3rd worlds benefactors by handing out aid packages but at the same time are being major conspirators in keeping the 3rd world exactly where it is. It borders on genocide IMO

October 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Does this mean that Owen Patterson will be the next to join Ukip?
It certainly looks likely.

Reply to  ralfellis
October 13, 2014 2:46 pm

No. Paterson will remain a conservative partymember and the Ukip price of a coalition will be Paterson as PM.

October 13, 2014 4:14 pm

You can lie to the people about AGW and even the temperature but you can’t lie about fuel prices and access to energy when people are dying. I’ve read several predictions that the Northern Hemisphere is in for a brutally cold winter. France, Germany, and the UK have sold their souls to the green devil and are about to pay the price.

Reply to  markl
October 13, 2014 8:21 pm

Not only that, there’s been more generating plants shut down than can now support a cold winter on the east coast of the US.
This could be a disaster in the making.

October 13, 2014 7:28 pm

The CCA is a prime example of minority interest Westminster activists having way too much power in decision making that affects the majority by causing serious financial waste.
The Act alone is terrible, with commitments both unnecessary and unworkable. The fact that the majority of the Commons voted to go far and beyond anything that anyone else in Europe was willing to do, to make some kind of point in what is nothing more than a political dick measuring contest, without any consideration of the consequential damage based on little thought or consultation, and the fact that European governments shook their head in dismay at our pointless policy ‘lead’, is frankly reprehensible.
If this was any other policy, the relevant MPs would have been fired and shamed long ago for the damage it has done to the national infrastructure, the money it has wasted, and the lives it has cost. Political careers have been destroyed, and MPs imprisoned on the basis of far lesser errors.
Personally, i’d like to see us take a page out of the Indian government’s book and ban the likes of Greenpeace as a threat to the stability of the national economy. At least they understand there is a little bit more to them and their agenda than simply saving Whales.

October 14, 2014 2:42 am

When I wonder will we see the public declaration by a UK politician (of any party) that the idea that human – generated CO2 will cause a planetary disaster is absurd?
All we see for example are trivial variations in temperature and sea level – and the oceans are not turning to acid!
The IPCC was formed in 1988, and since that date nothing much has happened that can’t be attributed to the Earth going about its normal business. So who’s going to suggest scrapping the IPCC?

Reply to  Carbon500
October 14, 2014 10:25 am

“So who’s going to suggest scrapping the IPCC?” The UN will never agree to letting anything go that gives them even a hint of control/power. The only way to neutralize them is to stop funding. The US is THE major contributor to the UN and I don’t know of any vote that lets the people control UN funding and the UN seems to be a sacred cow to the politicians. After all….who wouldn’t agree that the world needs to get along? Only a vote/mandate by the people will change anything.

October 14, 2014 5:58 am

And Germany continues to back down on “renewable” energy as the suicidal march back to the stone age slowly reverses its course:

Verified by MonsterInsights