David Cameron wins majority for Conservatives in Election 2015 victory
Britain’s Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey has lost his seat to the Conservative party, in an election night that has seen the Liberal Democrats presence in the House of Commons decimated. —The Mirror, 8 May 2015
David Cameron has won the general election with an outright majority after Labour was virtually wiped out in Scotland and the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed. Mr Cameron hailed the “sweetest victory” as his party secured the 323 seats needed to form a government without needing to go into coalition. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has resigned. Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor was the biggest scalp of the night, losing his Leeds seat to the Tories. —The Daily Telegraph, 8 May 2015
The Prime Minister has pledged to stop future government funding to windfarm projects including the delayed inquiry and to give local people the final say – if he is re-elected today. Mr Cameron pledged to stop the windfarm project and any other on-shore windfarms within Montgomeryshire if he was elected to take a second term in Government. He said: “I want to make it clear that if there is a Conservative Government in place we will remove all subsidy for on-shore wind and local people should have a greater say.” –Ben Goddard, County Times, 7 May 2015
Speculation is growing that energy and climate change department’s days of independence could be numbered. A government source said that if David Cameron is re-elected, he is likely to fold it into the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, where the government has more staff with commercial experience. –John Collingridge and Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times, 5 April 2015
New government will have to address capacity shortfalls to avoid blackouts. Avoiding a power blackout will be one of the first priorities for whoever forms the next government, a leading consultant has suggested. Critics argue that a focus on renewables has left Britain’s power network now dangerously short of spare capacity. –Andrew Critchlow, The Daily Telegraph, 8 May 2015
Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And did anyone really expect any different result? New Royal baby, Prince Harry doing the rounds here in Aus and in New Zealand. The media have been spewing Royalist coverage for weeks and weeks. I am sick of it!
I expected the Fabians to win with UKIP and Tories splitting the conservative vote. I was rooting for a second Atlee! Atlee was so funny.
The three “Ed’s” losing their seats. Wonderfull, not that it matters much to me! Classic, and all too funny! Milliband will pay for his “Climate Change Act” agreement in years to come!
“Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor was the biggest scalp of the night, losing his Leeds seat to the Tories.”
Not being all that familiar with British political parties, I didn’t know that “Tory” was another name for the Conservative Party until I looked it up. I suppose it’s just as confusing for the British when a story uses the names “Republican” and “GOP” interchangeably.
The Tories have been blamed for all manner of economic destruction. While it is true Thatcher moved the economy from making stuff to making stuff up (Finance/Banking etc), which IMO was a bad move, putting all “eggs” in one basket she was not the doom monger she was made out to be. Wilson closed more coal mines than Thatcher. Wilson pulled milk from all schools apart from primary schools. Though “Thatcher Thatcher the milk snatcher” is all people recall. Thatcher is on record for creating the Hadley climate unit and her speach in 1989 about climate etc that lead to the formation of the IPCC. She was out to kill the coal industry (Arthur Skargill had a hand in that too), for political reasons, at that time and to kill the “Dirty man of Europe” lable given to the UK at that time.
Patrick
You say you are commenting from the antipodes.
God alone knows where you have obtained your disinformation. For example, you write
Numerically true but factually misleading.
Wilson operated the ‘Plan For Coal’ that was agreed by both the major political parties. The ‘Plan For Coal’ concentrated production in large mechanised mines that operated longwall faces and this made redundant many small mines in which miners dug coal with picks and shovels so the redundant mines were shut.
Thatcher ceased the ‘Plan For Coal’ and instituted the Ridley Plan for closure of the coal industry.
One normally assumes the sensible dictum of not assuming malice when incompetence is a possibility. However, in the case of Thatcher that dictum needs to be reversed, and that is why three decades after she left office many of the towns she devastated held street parties to celebrate her death .
Richard
All of the points I made are factually true and correct, not misleading in any way. And that information is freely available on the web these days.
BTW, I am originally from England, I just live in Australia now. I lived through the pre-Thatcher and post-Thatcher years. I recall the years leading up to the winter of discontent and how power workers held the country to randsom with rolling blackouts throughout the country. I also recall the miners strikes, another wonderful acheivement by Skargill, where miners on strike threw concrete posts off bridges killing innocent motorists. I remember the bad times before Thatcher and the good times after. She also had to contend with the rest of the EU calling the UK the “Dirty man of Europe”, the cause of acid rain (From coal power generation and coal powered manufacturing) and the destruction of forrests in the EU zone, later proven not to be the cause.
She did some good and some bad, but the UK would not be where it is today, with potential to outstrip Germany in GDP in a decade or so, without her. I don’t care much for politicians, but I certainly don’t jump for joy at the news of their deaths.
Patrick
You say
So, your best justification of your nonsense is that it is “freely available on the web”.
I was Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management and we had to – and did – apply the Ridley Plan.
The idea that Thatcher’s ‘economic’ policies benefited the UK flies in the face of reality. Those policies were afforded by North Sea Oil revenues coming on stream, and they deliberately destroyed ~20% of the UK economy while making the UK so dependent on banking that a generation later the banking crisis provided another devastation of the UK.
I did not rejoice at Thatcher’s death but a generation after Thatcher left office her death was marked by street parties in some of the towns she devastated and Judi Garland singing “Dong dong, the witch is dead” rose to No.1 in the British hit parade.
You have gone to the far side of the Earth. We in the UK have to cope with the still damaging legacy of the Thatcher era.
Richard
Whatever your capacity was, the record is there for all to read, outside of internal knowledge/documents/meetings which you were exposed to. I know that may be a bitter taste for you, but the fact remains that most of the publically available information/history is freely available now. Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher. Wilson pulled more milk from schools than Thatcher. These are facts. I on’t care if it was Labour or Tory, they are facts. It’s like the Beaching report. Mostly implemented by Labour lead Govn’ts.
The UK would not be where it is today without her leadership!
Crickey, in media coverage about the UK elections…COMPLETELY ignores the Kinnock years! LOL…
North sea oil was discovered in the mid-1960’s matey, not after 1979! It was brought on-shore in the 70’s for refining in Scotland. Again BEFORE 1979. A much better/denser hydrocarbon source of energy that could be easily moved from one place to another than coal, ignoring the “dirty man of europe” calls. Thatcher was nowhere near it then. After 1979, sure, as any politician would, use that “wealth” to promote policy, and she did. Why not? And as I have said she made some bad choices, not making stuff (Mfg) to making stuff up (Banking etc) was a bad move proven, eventually, in 2008 and before. Tuff nugies if you don’t like historical fact!
What you ignore is that the economic reforms, though painful to many (Hey I was there), benefitted most people (In the end). Trouble is in the UK we now have morons like Cameron, Milliband etc, who are not interested in economic development, or democracy (UN Agenda 21), to the point that industry is being actively discouraged for lower CO2 emissions, leaving coal in the ground, importing woodchips from the US and building off-shore windmills.
The Thatcher years laid the foundation of what is now the UK economy (Nissan, Formula 1, Honda etc etc etc). But now politicians, from all sides of the political divide, want to destroy that work. Ford (Transits, Southhapton) pulled out of the UK. Why? A major factor is energy policy, thanks to Milliband!
Prove my posts wrong matey, prove them wrong!
Patrick
I don’t need to prove your daft and ignorant assertions wrong. You need to try to justify your rewriting of history.
Richard
And you fail!
And not once have you refuted my posts. Not once!
Lets not talk about “natural” gas, from the north sea, eh? Tory, Thatcher? Heh…funny!
Why is there (Almost) no coal industry in the UK if your actions, as you state you had “direct influence” on “policy”, were not effective? I have an answer…and I am sure it does not match yours.
Patrick
It is bad enough that you snow this thread with your untrue and ridiculous assertions about history, but you go too far when you assert I said other than I did.
I did NOT say I “had “direct influence” on “policy””. Your claim that I said that is a lie.
On the contrary, I said
and
Thatcher also deliberately destroyed several other industries; i.e. steel, shipbuilding, etc.
Now stop bothering me with your nonsense that has become a nuisance.
Richard
Note my post included quotes. Significant that…
Thatcher DID NOT destroy shipbuilding. The industry inself did that all on it’s lonesome. While ship “builders” were on strike in the UK, like the car “makers”, countries like Korea were building ships, under cost and well within time frames. It’s one reason why ships are STILL built in Korea today! Are you suggesting Thatcher caused that? HAH!
BTW, if you can present evidence that my “snow” posts are untrue…go right ahead!
Patrick
Your objectionable and untrue post did NOT include “quotes”. It put quotation marks around words I did NOT provide and said they were mine.
Your lies are unacceptable. Apologise then slither back under your bridge.
Richard
“richardscourtney
May 10, 2015 at 4:57 am
Patrick
I don’t need to prove your daft and ignorant assertions wrong”
Why? Show me where my posts are wrong. Prove it! Where am I wrong?
“richardscourtney
May 9, 2015 at 10:44 pm
I was Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management and we had to – and did – apply the Ridley Plan.”
???
Troll posting as Patrick
You demand that I show your silly falsehoods are wrong.
NO, troll, you are making the silly assertions so YOU need to provide some evidence for YOUR assertions.
You can start by trying to explain why you lied that you had quoted me as having said words that are the direct opposite of what I did say.
Richard
I think there be quotes in this there post…
“Patrick
May 10, 2015 at 6:31 am
Why is there (Almost) no coal industry in the UK if your actions, as you state you had “direct influence” on “policy”, were not effective? I have an answer…and I am sure it does not match yours.”
It was all Thatchers fault, right?
If you can show me where I “lied”, please do so. I will retract my statements and appologise.
Troll
There are no quotes in that post. There are words you have written and put quotation marks around.
Clearly, either you are a bot or an idiot. In either case, your insane posts have become too silly to warrant reply and I shall ignore any others.
Richard
And phulease, don’t lable me a troll because I hold a differing view to UK 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s history to you. That’s below the belt stuff!
Did I insult you? Did I call you a troll/idiot? Did I abuse you in some way with words?
Seeing Davey lose his seat was extremely satisfying. Ed Balls (Labour Shadow Chancellor and a man who makes a habit of issuing bouncing checks) losing his was a dream come true. What this will make of government policy as regards Global Warming remains to be seen.
There are still a lot of warmists in both the Tory party, my MP, Dan Poluter (Poulter really but I made a genuine mistake and liked it!), being a fine example. Warmists also infest the Civil Service, education, media, quangos and NGO’s. In fact, they say you’re never more than a few meters from a rat. Well, warmists are the same.
I hope the revitalised Tory party under Cameron will man up and deal with the crazy Green policies introduced by their former coalition partners, but their record in the testicular regeneration department isn’t great. We can but hope.
My favorite headline of the day was “Labour’s Balls Kicked!”
krb981
Your considered opinion (not all of which I agree) brings the thread back to serious consideration of the real and current issues. Thankyou.
Richard
True.
The simple question is, “Will the result of the GE make any difference to the government’s AGW obsession?”
The simple answer is “Not in any meaningful way.”
What you have now is the least worst option in regards to CAGW , but their remain plenty of Tories who have their snouts in the renewable subsides feed bucket , such has Gummer and even Cameron’s father in law , and other who are committed to the cause such has Cameron wife, while there is still plenty of positive PR in dressing up in green on the international stage .
Has for Davey, his been a dead man for sometime and so has probably been lining himself up a nice little number in some green NGO or renewable firm , where he can continue to offer little value for maximum tax payer cost.
So little change , any real change will have to wait until post Paris anyway , and Ed gone but unlikely to remain forgotten .
This remarkable turn of events is actually good news for sceptics. Of all the major parties, UKIP and the Conservatives are the most sceptical about climate change. Some senior Conservatives are sceptical e.g. Peter Lilley, Owen Paterson and Nigel Lwason. Even Boris Johnson (hopefully the next Prime minister) has made some slightly sceptical remarks. Mrs Thatcher used climate change in her fight against the miners, but in her later years she became sceptical.
Sadly Cameron is still completely deluded about climate change. But he did supposedly talk about the need to “cut the green crap”, so maybe there is hope.
Fingers crossed….
Chris
There’s one remarkable aspect of the election: all the opinion polls appeared to indicate both main parties were neck-and-neck, when in fact the Conservatives had a clear lead. There will be an investigation in order to find out how the polling companies got it so disastrously wrong.
A speaker on BBC news put forward an intriguing explanation. According to her, the companies using internet polling were showing equal votes for both parties and so were predicting a hung parliement, which was definitely the consensus. But a small number of companies who were using telephone polls were showing large Conservative leads over the past weeks and months. But here’s the crunch: because these companies were so far outside the consensus, they adjusted their data to ensure it fitted with the consensus.
Does this sound familiar?
Chris
Isn’t all this discussion of British politics taking us way off topic?
No, because as far as the issue of Global Warming is concerned, Politics IS the topic. The science may interest us, but it hasn’t been a seriously contested issue for quite a few years now
Chris Wright
I answered the points in your two post in my above posts that are here and here and here.
Richard
The basic problem here is beLIEf in government, not in beLIEf in AGW. Do you actually think this man will actually keep his promises? lol. As unthinkable as it may seem, abandoning beLIEf in government, no matter what form of government, will heal a lot of the wounds we are suffering.
If you would just look into the Electric Universe theory, you will see that so many things are very plausibly explained, and that it is very possible and necessary to abandon the “thoughts” provided to the general public about this and many other beLIEfs generated by the “scientific” community.
The election was an outright rejection of ‘Green’ … green politics… green technologies … green subsidies … green dogma … green alarmism!
How do you conclude that, given that “green” anything was not in the top 10 most important election issues on the minds of voters? : https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3447/Economy-immigration-and-healthcare-are-Britons-top-three-issues-deciding-general-election-vote.aspx
This British system of dolling out the MP seats is all news to this United States Of American.
No wonder we colonists couldn’t get any representation in Parliament.