What the Boris landslide means for the climate debate

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The fasmunist haters of democracy in Antifa have been rioting in London in protest at the landslide that the voters accorded to Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party in Thursday’s general election.

Like the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the election of Boris Johnson in 2019 demonstrates just how far the totalitarians in the “Democratic” and “Labor” parties have departed from their working-class roots, and how much they hate and fear democracy itself, and how much good reason they have to fear the common sense of the voters – especially those in the working class.

Johnson, like Trump, concentrated his campaign on rust-belt constituencies deserted by the now-metropolitan-illiberal hard Left and, worse still, laid waste by official global-warming policies – ironically, by the very global-warming policies that Johnson, unlike Trump, slobberingly endorses. Johnson’s current partner – the First Squeeze, as the tabloid newspapers call her – is a climate fanatic, and his father Stan has joined the violent urban terrorist mob Extinction Rebellion.


A Communist cartoon from the general election campaign

The 80-seat majority won by the Conservatives is remarkable given that the now openly hard-Left BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4 were scandalously, in-your-face prejudiced against the Conservatives throughout the campaign.

The usual fake news techniques were deployed. When Boris Johnson refused to take part in a Channel 4 leaders’ debate, on the ground that the channel was so prejudiced, it demonstrated his point by replacing him on air with an ice-sculpture intended to look like him.

A mother put her four-year-old son on a pile of coats on the floor of a hospital emergency ward. He was photographed, and the photo was circulated to these propagandists, who duly made them headline news.


Note the chair in which the child had been sitting before this photo was staged

The truth was that the child had already been seen by the emergency team and had been assessed as low-risk. He had been sitting quietly in a chair next to his mother, waiting for a CT scan. It had been she, not the hospital, who had put her little son on the floor, presumably because he found it hard to sleep in the chair one of whose legs can be seen in the photo.

The media, of course, did not bother to check the story. They rushed to interview Boris Johnson, giving him no time to verify the facts. Here is an image of a journalist showing the photo to him. The image appeared in The Guardian (inevitably):


A few years ago I was taken gravely ill and was rushed to hospital in Maidstone, Kent, one busy evening. I was hours from death. But no bed could be found. I was laid on a trolley and spent the night in a corridor, wired up to stabilizing medication that saved my life.

Did I complain? Did I clamber on to the floor? Did I have photos taken? Did I circulate them to the media? No and no and no and no: I was profoundly grateful that, on a busy evening for the emergency team, they had nevertheless found the time, the compassion and the competence to improvise and save my life.

The truth is that net immigration to Britain is running at about 1 million a year – four times the officially-disclosed rate. One can easily work this out by noticing the number of national insurance numbercards issued to foreigners – no numbercard, no job, and nearly all immigrants are economic migrants aged under 35, so the first thing they do when they’ve paid off the smugglers who get them into Britain is apply for a numbercard.

But the public-service planners – in both parties – have based all their projections on the obviously wrong official figures – just as with climate change. Result: not enough hospital beds to cope with about 15 million more people than the bureaucrats had planned for.

Not that you’d have learned any of that from the Marxstream media. To point out truths of this kind is to be excoriated as “racist”. For the Left are desperate to increase the rate of net immigration to Britain, because the first two generations of immigrants tend to vote Left. After that, they learn wisdom and don’t do that.

There is another reason why Boris’ landslide (the BBC refused to call it that, of course) is remarkable. According to the opinion polls, some 72% of students voted Labor, and only 9% voted Conservative. An imbalance as frighteningly wide as this is a testament to the completeness of the Marxist capture of the schools and universities, and to the thoroughness and one-sidedness of the relentless indoctrination to which young people are subjected.

It is this systemic indoctrination in the schools and universities that has allowed the climate nonsense to persist for as long as it has. Nearly all young people in Britain have absolutely no idea that there is any case against the totalitarian Party Line on the climate question – let alone that the Party Line is flat-out wrong.

In the short term, the Conservative victory will make little difference to the monumentally stupid and egregiously expensive climate policies on which all parties are fatuously agreed. Even the Brexit Party, to its eternal shame, abandoned the working class and issued a briefing ordering its supporters to toe the line on the climate question. It did not win a single seat.

Parliament has already voted to preserve the daft, crippling global-warming policies insisted upon by the unelected Kommissars who wield all real power in the Brussels tyranny-by-clerk even after we have left the EU. If the current draft of the arrangement with the EU survives Parliamentary scrutiny – and it probably will – Britain will foolishly lock herself by treaty into continuing with the climate madness.

Then, even when the truth emerges, as it will, we shall not be free to decontaminate our economy and bring back the numerous businesses – coal, steel, aluminium smelting, motor manufacture and soon beef farming – that are going or gone because global warming.

The sheer insanity of transferring these and countless suchlike necessary industries to jurisdictions such as China and occupied Tibet is that the CO2 emissions per ton of steel are far higher there than here. The net effect of Europe’s insane climate policies is thus to increase global emissions, not to reduce them. But then, the aim was never to reduce emissions: it was to reduce the Western economies to ruin.

However, the fasmunists are not rioting for nothing. They know that the back benches of the Conservative party are more prone to ask tiresome, skeptical questions than the Communist – er, “Labor” – party. As the world continues to fail to warm at anything remotely resembling the originally-predicted rate, and as the cost in jobs lost and industries transferred to China and occupied Tibet mounts, common sense is far more likely to break through in the Conservative party than among the various fasmunist parties that took such a drubbing at the hands of the voters.

In one crucial respect, Boris Johnson’s victory may yet turn out to be decisive for the cause of objective truth on scientific questions such as the climate. During the campaign, he said he was thinking of ending the cruel poll tax that is the $200 annual compulsory licence-fee paid to the unspeakable BBC by everyone who has a television.

If he is as good as his word – and it is very much in the interest of all who care about democracy that he should be – he will make the abolition of the Bolshevik Broadcasting Commisariat’s licence fee his first priority.


Margaret Thatcher thought of abolishing the BBC tax. She appointed an amiable, other-worldly academic from Scotland to examine the question. He approached all the other major broadcasters, who told him the BBC was “special”, a “national treasure”, etc., etc. Taken in by this waffle, he recommended against abolition.

Some years later, when he told me his reasoning, I told him that the other broadcasters had opposed ending the licence fee – just as they would today – because they did not want to have to compete with the BBC for advertising revenue. He slapped his hand to his forehead and said that if he had realized that he’d have recommended abolition.

I shall be taking steps to make sure that Downing Street does not make the same mistake a second time. Effectively, all the major broadcasters are subsidized by the fact that they don’t have to share the advertising-revenue cake with the BBC. Like all subsidized entities, they hate and resent the taxpayers who subsidize them, and tend to take a far more hard-Left line than they would if they were made to earn their living rather than rent-seeking via the BBC licence fee.

Finally, Boris Johnson, now that he has been subjected to the most prejudiced media campaign I’ve ever seen and has nevertheless triumphed, may well think of bringing in a Freedom of Speech Bill to guarantee that all sides are fairly heard, particularly in the schools and universities.

In the long run, democracy cannot survive unless there is open debate – a debate that the Left has striven for decades to suppress. One of the two principles of natural justice recognized in English law is audiatur et altera pars – let both sides be fully and fairly heard. On climate, that is not happening. It’s high time it did.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 15, 2019 2:13 am

That Johnson won despite all the hostile press can be taken as a silver lining, if not glaring rays of hope. It tells us the press is irrelevant and their one-sidedness may even be working as an asset.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  pierre gosselin
December 15, 2019 3:55 am

This was the 3rd vote on Brexit in the UK. Each time the message was get out of the EU. What makes you think this time will be any different?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 15, 2019 4:42 am

To provide a bit more context, it is the young -who mostly don’t vote conservative- who believe in the ‘climate emergency’. The age at which most people vote tory is around 45 and upwards. This older age group are much more sceptical.

The New Northern seats that have been won are made up of hard bitten and equally cynical people. So all in all the previously highly liberal London metropolitan ‘climate emergency’ fearing Conservative voting intelligentsia has largely been replaced by those who are much more sceptical.

we shall see if this translates itself into policy, but let us not forget that the tory manifesto promises involved sensible measures of planting more trees, better home insulation and a renewed search for fusion, with carbon neutrality only by 2050 and not some more damaging and unrealistic policies


Reply to  tonyb
December 15, 2019 6:26 am

What is interesting is that people below 35 are always much less conservative than people over 35.

I believe this has to be biological and related to the fact humans stop reproducing soon after 35. I don’t quite understand this, but I remember voting stupid principled leftists at the age of 30, but not doing it at 40. It is as if having kids puts your brain on rails, but why so late? What is the reason why young people are always so idealistic? Why y
I started being practical at 35?

Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 7:36 am

Under age 35, you want things you cannot afford. Others have the wherewithall, and it’s ‘unfair’ that they have those things and you don’t. They should be forced to share. So you vote leftest for redistribution of wealth.

After age 35, and having worked your way up to a good income, you are the one with the wealth. You did without; you worked; you earned what you have. If you ever reflected upom it, you would likely admit you would not have worked as hard, as long, if you had been given the things you wanted. Regardless, you do not see the fairness of having your wealth taken away, and realize that having to work for it is in the best interest of the young. You vote conservative.

Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 8:50 am

Sometimes it takes having your money stolen and redistributed to others for YEARS to realize what is happening, or more likely, you finally reached a point in your life when you have more money to be stolen because dependent tax deductions and other government family related “benefits” have gone away.

My OPINION is that if your opinion changes due to your viewpoint, i.e. personal circumstances, that you have been either ignorant, unthinking, or are unprincipled. Most leftists I know change their opinion on many issues purely on their own self interest. I do not see that from true conservatives.

I am, and have been, an odd case. I became conservative at about 15, shortly after having been with “radicals”, just my peers. We produced an anti Vietnam war, and in general anti-authority, “underground” paper that we distributed in junior high school, 9th grade where I lived. Had much fun with the administrative staff because we brought it onto school grounds. Later distributed it on the sidewalk in front. Even got the Anti-american Communist and Leftist Universalists involved. Actual logical discussions with the adults involved, the school administrators, started me THINKING. That THINKING and the following REASONING led me from the popular adolescent BELIEFS to actual sound JUDGMENTS. I have been a consistent “conservative” since. Against WAR for economic reasons, against the government being involved in MARRIAGE, either promoting or defining the same, against destruction of the environment for undue profit, not against any use of public lands, just abuse of the same.

A story: I got my hair cut in a barbershop frequented by various city and state elected officials for over 30 years. I would see one particular politician a couple times a year because we would go Saturday mornings. One of the barbers was on the City council when this individual was at the state legislature. The barber/counciman complained about the state laws putting unfunded mandates on the local government which the state legislator strongly defended.

5 or 6 years later the state legislator was now a county commissioner. I was in the chair getting a cut when he came in. He began to complain about the state telling the county what they had to do. I looked at the still city councilman/barber. I could see he also remembered the earlier discussion and just gave me the slightest nod. After the commissioner finished talking, I lambasted him as the liberal he was, recounting the earlier discussion. He was a politician who claimed to be conservative, but never was. As a true liberal, he attempted to deny the previous discussion had occured, but the councilman/barber shut him down, and he eventually admitted the truth.

Why the nod? I was a city employee and had had numerous political conversations in the shop that at times caused difficulty for myself and/or the councilman, being in a liberal leaning city. This was in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the 7 Clark County comissioners are considered as powerful as the governor. The councilman/barber was a Democrat, but of the old mold, meaning a reasonable, thoughtful, principled man, not what the Democrat party is today. The legislator/comissioner would easily fit into the current Democrat party.

Not trying to disparage Hugs, just my experience. That is the ultimate teacher. My father once told me, at about the time of my AWAKWNING, “I can’t wait till you grow up and don’t know EVERYTHING anymore”. Many of the WOKE children will grow up and begin to understand they don’t know everything. The scary part is that many will not, or as was so well stated by Ronald Reagan:

“The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 9:28 am

re: “Hugs December 15, 2019 at 6:26 am
What is interesting is that people below 35 are always much less conservative than people over 35.

Lifelong conservative here. Didn’t protest the Vietnam war and my first vote was for Gerald R. Ford in the next general election after Nixon resigned …

Not every one of ‘us’ was brain dead from the get-go.

I think what got me perhaps ‘started’ was the fact I had to pay SS ‘tax’ out of my paycheck while working part time as teenager employed at a mom and pop lawn and garden tractor sales and service retailer. I still remember Nixon’s law and order presidential platform, and the riots in Chicago at the dem national convention in the latter 1960’s.

Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 10:19 am

I think it is cyclical. Younger generations just oppose whatever the old foggies or parents do believe.

sky king
Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 2:52 pm

I followed a similar trajectory. I became a conservative as I worked for a large international corporation and saw the difficulty solving even well-defined problems with known well-understood principles. Thinking that know-nothing pols and bureaucrats could eliminate complex human problems became very hard to believe. I also started a family at the same time and could see how the taxman was doing his part to deprive my kids of a future I was trying to provide them. Only in later life have I spent the time to read Founding Fathers’ documents and classical liberal literature to understand the proper role of government and human nature.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 4:59 pm

The councilman/barber was a Democrat, but of the old mold, meaning a reasonable, thoughtful, principled man, not what the Democrat party is today.

So true. The historic Democrat heroes, FDR, Truman, JFK, would scarcely recognize the current generation of Democrats and, I believe, not support them. This current generation of Democrats more strongly resemble Democrat and Confederate president Jeff Davis, with his racial hatred of blacks replaced by an equally idiotic and irrational racial hatred of whites. This current crop of children in adult bodies who call Republicans racists are often shocked to discover that the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic party, and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only passed when Republican Everett Dirksen broke a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. And more recently, that under Republican Trump, Black unemployment is at the lowest level in history and that Black entrepreneurial business start-ups are at the highest level in history. Our only hope is that children do eventually grow up, and that some of them eventually do learn to think. Some of them. I have my doubts about AOC and Warren and obviously Sanders never did either grow up or learn to think.

Phils Dad
Reply to  Hugs
December 15, 2019 5:03 pm

As babies and young children we get what we want by screaming.
No thought as to how it is provided or at what cost.
Some take longer than others to grow up.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Hugs
December 16, 2019 11:06 pm

I must be an anomaly – I’ve been right of centre all my life, although I consider myself Libertarian rather than Tory and I generally keep out of politics. I remember in’78/9 trying to get onto site and being barred by flying pickets- it was bloody scary! I was 17 at the time and I think this had an effect, I was asking who they thought was going to pay them once they’d ‘brought down the system’ and why they thought Arthur Scargill and co., (remember him?), actually cared about the workers. I also had an older uncle who was very pro-Scargill, and would often argue with him – it just didn’t remotely make sense to me, but then I went to work the day I left school instead of going to university so obviously I’m one of the thicko types that the elites hate. Looking back, it must have seemed odd to others that the teenager was arguing for Mrs Thatcher whilst the 50 odd year old was the far left idealist!

Reply to  pierre gosselin
December 15, 2019 6:13 am

The Labour Party are blaming their defeat on a biased media. No party is ever happy with their coverage.

Reply to  Susan
December 15, 2019 4:08 pm

Well it’s kinda true in way, but not in the way they think. I was over in the UK in September and, although I tried to avoid it, I couldn’t. The Brexit blather was everywhere. I bet some people voted Conservative just to get the blather over with.

Also, can someone tell me why some Brexit Party candidates still stood, thereby splitting the vote? Selfish a-hole attention-seekers is the one reason that comes to mind, but am I missing something? I didn’t do a whole lot of counting, but I saw at least two seats where the combined vote would have put the Labour phony-socialist out on his/her ear, for an even bigger evisceration of the parasite party. For all I know, it could have been twenty. Anyone have a link?

….. and in case anyone’s wondering, I was born and raised in the factory rust belt of Northern England, so know it well.

Reply to  philincalifornia
December 15, 2019 5:35 pm

Look at Doncaster North – Ed Milliband was crushed by the combined Conservative and Brexit vote. What were they playing at, and shouldn’t he be embarrassed to actually keep his seat?


Roger Knights
Reply to  philincalifornia
December 16, 2019 5:39 pm

“Also, can someone tell me why some Brexit Party candidates still stood, thereby splitting the vote? Selfish a-hole attention-seekers is the one reason that comes to mind, but am I missing something?”

They ran only in Labour districts, hoping to reduce Labour’s vote-count by attracting Labourites who would never vote for a Tory. It worked. A Guardian article explained it well:

“The Brexit party folded, but make no mistake: Farage won it for Johnson
Darren Loucaides
Whatever Nigel Farage does next, his decision to stand aside against 317 Tories and target Labour leavers was monumental”

Reply to  Roger Knights
December 16, 2019 7:57 pm

Thanks for the explanation. It didn’t work well enough around Rotherham/Doncaster though. Would’ve been great for Miliband to have been ousted.

Did I have a nightmare, or is Ed Davey back?

Jon-Anders Grannes
Reply to  pierre gosselin
December 15, 2019 8:35 am

I think people are becoming aware of an absolute and totalitarian idea that is approaching from within and from the outside?

Andy Espersen
December 15, 2019 2:28 am

Boris Johnson is well known for changing his convictions and opinions with the greatest of ease to fit in with the way the winds are blowing – like an ever-practical leader must at times. Watch him become a climate sceptic when he realises the economic impossibility of UK following the disastrous climate policies they began recently. My bet is that the new government will soon make a 180 degree about turn on those policies. There is no need to renege on the Paris agreement – just stall the whole nonsense. Do nothing – like all other sensible countries.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Andy Espersen
December 15, 2019 4:00 am

Watch first for a breakup with the First Squeeze. She will continue to nag him meanwhile.

William Astley
Reply to  Andy Espersen
December 15, 2019 7:41 am

Your bet is not a bet. Boris Johnson on the side of the UK and reality which is what Christopher Monckton piece is about.

Policies based on fantasy, with forced construction of things that do not work, that will kill our economy, at a time when we are highly in debt, and have a need for more money for public services,

…. crazy on is on multiple levels, including the political future for Boris.

I think hope Boris is a good guy and not just an opportunist.

Let’s see.

michael hart
Reply to  William Astley
December 15, 2019 8:32 am

Its not like he’s a completely unknown quantity, having had two(?) terms as Mayor of London.

Either way, it’s difficult to see him being worse than the alternative. John McDonnel, shadow chancellor, is direct from the Scargill wing of the Labour Party (something which means a lot to UK people who were of reading age in the 1970’s). You can watch a video of him privately proclaiming his brotherhood of Marxism and gloating about the financial crash of 2008. Marxists/Communists have a dream about the crash that must lead to the downfall of capitalism. It’s no different than religious cults dreaming of the events in the Book of Revelation.

The hard left that were kicked out of the Labour Party by Neil Kinnock and then Blair/Brown/Campbell/Mandelson have returned like Sauron and are once again seeking the ring of power. Fortunately enough people recognized this, despite the BBC and their allies.

Reply to  michael hart
December 15, 2019 9:43 am

michael hart
“Marxists/Communists have a dream about the crash that must lead to the downfall of capitalism. It’s no different than religious cults dreaming of the events in the Book of Revelation.”

This thought is a keeper, michael. Fair Waring, I’m stealing it!

Reply to  michael hart
December 16, 2019 7:51 am

Michael – most of the credit for undoing the Marxist Labour party of the 70’s and 80’s is due to both John Smith and Neil Kinnock (and their supporters) – Blair and cronies reaped the benefit of their hard work.

You’d think the Labour Party would have learned that lesson, don’t let the Marxists in, enough of the electorate do spot them and don’t vote for them. Apparently not.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
December 15, 2019 1:18 pm

Be fair to Boris, though. Once he staked his claim on Brexit, he stuck with it with courage. The voters rewarded him

Alan Chapprll
December 15, 2019 2:30 am

Schooling ??? History ( climate at the front )

December 15, 2019 2:49 am

Excellent Lord Monckton. Hear hear

Rod Evans
December 15, 2019 2:50 am

Christopher, you know just as well as I do, the left in politics despise democracy. They see it as a route to their ultimate control and therefor, have to engage in its processes until they gain sufficient power to abandon it.
We have seen by the post election activity of the Labour party and its adherents, they do not accept they were destroyed by an educated electorate, fearing a Marxist takeover. They claim they had very popular policies as outlined in their manifesto, but the public were more focused on Brexit. While that is not without a half truth, it ignores the main truth.
The Marxists were told by the British electorate to go away. The totalitarians in the EU commissariat have been told to go away. The Liberal Democrats aka fifth column Communists, were told to go away and their leader was defeated.
The social media shrills, who think they have some magic power of influence, were told to “tweet off”. Message to Luvvies, don’t imagine for a single minute, you speak for the majority of people here in Great Britain.
The Tory stance on “climate change” is a concern, but we have to fight one battle at a time. We have to stop the Maxists,.. mission accomplished, we then have to leave the EU,.. mission outstanding, then we have to rebuild a mixed economy here in the UK, to bring hope and opportunity back, to the areas in the abandoned north, that need the ladder of opportunity only energy and manufacturing can provide, mission objective.
Keep up the good work.

Reply to  Rod Evans
December 15, 2019 4:56 am

The right wingnut Trump voters are the ones who despise and constantly work to ignore our Constitution and its democratic republican underpinnings.

There is no comparability between Trump and Johnson, none whatsoever.

UKers can make whatever they want of the election result, but it was in no way in support of Trump and Trumpism. Trump is deeply despised throughout the UK. Johnson himself participated in the recent hot mike mockery of Trump by world leaders at the NATO summit. Johnson very publicly warned Trump against any attempt to influence the UK voters, because doing so would surely backfire to Johnson’s detriment.

The UK voters voted to get on with it on Brexit, and rejected any further indecision. UK voters don’t like Corbin or radical leftism, but they also rejected the Brexit Party and its radical right wingnutism – they got zero seats in Parliament.

Johnson and the UK Conservarive Party are nothing at all like Trump and the current, Trumpified Republican in Name Only Party. Ronald Reagan would be horrified at today’s RINO party.

Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 7:51 am

re: “The right wingnut”

Thanks, “lefty tosser” (a Boris Johnson term) for self-identifying.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 8:15 am

“Ronald Reagan would be horrified at today’s RINO party.”

Reagan would love this Republican Party and especially this Republican President. Trump is implementing every policy Reagan ever dreamed of.

What policy of Trump’s would Reagan disagree with? There may be something but I can’t think of anything. Reagan probably wouldn’t like Trump’s “bedside manner” since Reagan was polite to a fault, but Reagan would definitely love Trump’s conservatism and nationalism.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 15, 2019 10:12 am

Reagan was a gentleman, he would not approve of the corrupt, womanising, slimeball president in the seat now. He also knew the Russians were not to be trusted, unlike comrade Trump who will accept help from anyone who will help hm personally.

Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 10:20 am

re: “he would not approve of the corrupt, womanising, slimeball president in the seat now.”

You don’t know, that, unless, of course, you are Reagan re-incarnated, back ‘from the dead’.

WHICH brings to mind this video (based on Dr. Love) “I’ve got the wins you’re thinking of” and “Even though I’m full of sin, in the end you know I’ll win”

(God has used MORE sinful men than this for his purposes than we can EVER imagine …)

Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 10:57 am

Simon, ah, the old “Trump is a Russian agent” thingy again?
It seems Democrats think everyone they don’t like is a Russian agent. Interesting.

Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a ‘Russian asset’ groomed to ensure Trump reelection

Jill Stein Responds to Hillary Clinton’s Claim She’s a Russian Agent
https://youtu.be/yaeEg-GcPDw via @YouTube

Gutsy Hillary And Pal Christopher Steele Say “PM Boris Johnson Is Russian Asset”
December 12, 2019

Hillary Clinton says Julian Assange colluded with Russia to help Donald Trump win US election


Meanwhile, the only person we know who has taken tens of millions of dollars from Putin and who did collude with foreign agents to include agents in the Kremlin and the UK and pay them, is Hillary.
Rand Paul: The Only Person We Know Colluded With The Russians Is Hillary Clinton

Also, here.
Yes, The Russia Scandal Is Real — And It Involves Hillary Clinton

The Hill report goes on to say that federal agents found evidence “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.”
Isn’t that called bribery?
…The Clintons and their foundation raked in a cool $145 million in donations and “speaking fees” just from Uranium One- and Rosatom-affiliated donors while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was supposedly keeping all Clinton Foundation business at “arm’s-length.”

But, everyone but Hillary is a Russian agent even though Hillary is the one who did them huge favors and Hillary and Bill are the only ones who received millions upon millions of dollars from them. Hmmm.

Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 2:26 pm

“Simon, ah, the old “Trump is a Russian agent” thingy again?
It seems Democrats think everyone they don’t like is a Russian agent. Interesting.”
You need to learn to read. I didn’t say he was an agent I said he accepted help from them. And he did. And as for your other nonsense, you need to save your conspiracy theories for people with an IQ below 100.
I notice you didn’t make any attempt to refute the fact that Trump is a womanising, corrupt slimeball.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 7:10 pm

“I notice you didn’t make any attempt to refute the fact that Trump is a womanising, corrupt slimeball.”

Let me take a crack at that.

Most heterosexual men are interested in women. I don’t consider that to be a sin. Trump, as far as we know, never forced any woman to do anything she didn’t want to do. I don’t see anything wrong there, either.

Just as there is no evidence for human-caused climate change, there is also no evidence that Trump is corrupt.

“Slimeball” is a personal opinion not subject to refutation.. You are welcome to believe whatever you want as far as that goes.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 8:56 pm

…save your conspiracy theories for people with an IQ below 100.
I notice you didn’t make any attempt to refute the fact that Trump is a womanising, corrupt slimeball.

Poor Simon, don’t you realize that a fact is not a theory? As for corrupt and womanising (sic), the Clinton trail of corruption goes back decades and is well documented up to the present (Tyson and Uranium One to name only 2), and Bill’s trail of womanizing and abuse makes DJT’s alleged minor peccadilloes look saintly by comparison. Until someone shows up with a young intern’s dress stained with Trump’s semen, proven by an FBI DNA analysis like the Lewinsky dress was, anybody who is not hopelessly ideologically brainwashed (got a mirror handy, Simon?) will conclude that “womanising, corrupt slimeball” fits a former president far better than the current one. And Hillary’s vicious attacks on the women brave enough to speak out against Billy C. shows that she is/was FAR more interested in power and the corruption opportunities it provides than decency and honesty.

Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 9:02 pm

Tom Abbott
“Most heterosexual men are interested in women. I don’t consider that to be a sin. Trump, as far as we know, never forced any woman to do anything she didn’t want to do. I don’t see anything wrong there, either.”
There area numerous sexual assault cases against him at this point. There infamous hollywood tape clearly shows a man with little respect for woman. Back to the point ,Reagan would never have spoken about women like that.

“Just as there is no evidence for human-caused climate change, there is also no evidence that Trump is corrupt.”
Ummm ….Trump University cost him 25 million to make his corrupt fraudulent activities go away. He lied about so much of that issue…In an infomercial, Trump said he “hand-picked” Trump University’s instructors. He testified in a 2012 deposition, however, that he never selected the instructors for the program.

The Trump Organization has been implicated in money laundering, tax scams and the rampant hiring of undocumented workers.
And he keeps good friends…his former campaign chair and co-chair, along with two of his closest advisers, have been convicted of multiple crimes.

And if he is so clean let’s see his tax returns. I bet they hide quite a bit. If not why not release them? After all he promised he would… but then he didn’t.

Reply to  Simon
December 15, 2019 10:03 pm

Bill Murphy
Why is it Trump-ka-teers main defence is to find someone who in their opinion is more guilty than their lord and saviour? What a sad place we have arrived at. And you Bill also need to learn to read. I was pointing out the Reagan would be horrified by the slimy man in charge now and you flip it to the Clintons. That that somehow makes Trump less of fraud. News flash. Neither of the Clintons is the president, but dirt bag Trump is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
December 16, 2019 6:48 am

One question I have is what do Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (you know, the brothers with other mothers, as they describe themselves) talk about around the kitchen table? Does Bill describe his escapades flying on the Lolita Express or what went on after he landed at Lolita Island?

Simon, do you consider Bill Clinton a slimeball? I do. I think he is a predator of women and will hurt them to get what he wants. I think he should be behind bars to keep the women safe.

If you agree that Bill Clinton is a slimeball, then doesn’t that make George W. Bush a slimeball? Is Reagan the only morally acceptable president to you?

I can’t imagine being friendly with Bill Clinton. The whole time I would be in his presence I would be thinking about all the harm to women he has caused. It would be impossible for me to be polite in such a situation. I guess George W can manage it.

George, if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. I guess I should address that to the whole Bush family since they all seem to think it is a good idea to normalize Bill Clinton.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 16, 2019 6:33 am

Simon says: “There area numerous sexual assault cases against him at this point.”

Are you sure about that? I believe, although I’m not sure, that all but one of those cases has been dropped. Democrats are good at producing women who claim they have been raped. You shouldn’t believe everything Democrats say. Wait for some evidence first before condemning Trump.

Simon says: “There infamous hollywood tape clearly shows a man with little respect for woman.”

That’s what has really got your goat, isn’t it. You ever been in a men’s locker room, Simon? You will hear that kind of talk all day long. It doesn’t necessarily mean they have little respect for women, it may just mean they are trying to impress the guys they are bragging to.

Simon says: “Back to the point ,Reagan would never have spoken about women like that.”

Well, you don’t know what Reagan would have said in a locker room, now do you. I suspect you are correct but we should be tryig to deal in facts here rather than speculation.

Simon says: “Ummm ….Trump University cost him 25 million to make his corrupt fraudulent activities go away,” etc, etc.

Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of criminality. All your other allegations are just that: Allegations. The man is innocent until proven guilty, Simon. He hasn’t been proven guilty of anything as of this date.

Simon says: “And if he is so clean let’s see his tax returns. I bet they hide quite a bit. If not why not release them? After all he promised he would… but then he didn’t.”

Well, Trump hasn’t released the tax returns because he says his lawyers don’t want him to release them right now because he is under a tax audit. Trump said not long ago that he didn’t mind if the Democrats saw his tax returns. I take from that that Trump is not worried about what they would find in his tax returns.

No doubt the Democrats can make anything look sinister and illegal, as they do with their impeachment fiasco, but I’m betting on Trump and I bet he did everything by the legal book. He’s too rich to try to defraud the government and besides that is not in his character. No doubt you will disagree with that last statement, but that would be because you have a bias that blinds you to the truth.

Trump may be one of the most honest presidents in United States history. The Democrats have thrown everything they can find at him and have examined his whole life and can’t get a thing on him.

The Impeachment Charade is making Trump stronger. His support among the voters is increasing. Keep it up, Democrats. We’ll see what happens in the U.S. Senate where Trump will get a fair hearing, not the Kangaroo Court that is the Democrat House of Representatives.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 16, 2019 10:14 am

So Tom, do you think they will let the people who really know whether Trump abused his position testify? Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Trump himself? Never in a million years. None of them want to purger themselves. They know he acted improperly but will keep their mouths shut. And you blind supporters will say that is all ok. Clinton had witnesses at his senate trial (Monica who was central to the whole thing). But Trump can just say it is all a hoax, even though pretty much all the testimony says otherwise.

As for his tax returns being under audit. What a joke……

Reply to  Simon
December 16, 2019 10:29 am

Simon, (1) mistaking opinion for fact and (2) perceived ‘abuse of power’ for legitimate executive action.

The Constitution gives the executive branch BROAD power to act in our interest.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 16, 2019 11:22 am

“perceived ‘abuse of power’ for legitimate executive action.”
The word “legitimate” is the key here. Holding an alley to ransom (withholding aid that had been approved by congress) so you can get dirt on a political rival and so subvert the democratic process….is about as far from legitimate as you could get. And don’t give me the BS he was looking to fight corruption. Trump never mentioned corruption of Ukraine before this all blew up. And if he really was looking to fight corruption “legitimately” he would have done it though the “legitimate” US agencies. Not by sneaking around and asking a “corrupt” country to do it.

Reply to  Simon
December 16, 2019 1:57 pm

Simon, have you (1) ever command men in battle? Or are you simply one (2) of those “keyboard prattlers” that tells everyone else how to live their lives?

I think it’s (2), and your opinion is less than simply “worthless”, as it’s a net drain on all of us … ppl like yourself would simply die and blow away (as you would not be able to feed yourself) if it weren’t for the technical developments in civilization that person such as myself are responsible for.

That’s all from me on this, as you’ve been determined to be an idiot.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 16, 2019 3:37 pm

Command men in battle? Huh? What has that got to do with private bonespur Trump the draft dodger. All you wrote was…. Blah Blah Blah. Now tell me where I am wrong so we can debate this like adults.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 17, 2019 9:28 am

Also, let’s not forget the most recent, ‘super clean’ Democrat president, a Mr. Obama, who’s personal fortune was largely amassed whilst he was in office, which makes me wonder how he found time to run the country.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 17, 2019 10:55 am

“Also, let’s not forget the most recent, ‘super clean’ Democrat president, a Mr. Obama, who’s personal fortune was largely amassed whilst he was in office, which makes me wonder how he found time to run the country”
Well we know he didn’t play more golf than “I’m the best golfer on the planet” Donnie.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 18, 2019 5:04 am

Simon wrote: “So Tom, do you think they will let the people who really know whether Trump abused his position testify? Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo,”

We will never know because the Democrats short-circuited the process by proceeding with impeachment before the Supreme Court even has a chance to rule on whether the conversations of Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo are protected under Executive privilege.

And Btw, I don’t condone “lockerroom” talk and would not do something like that myself. Fortunately for me, I haven’t been subjected to overhearing those kinds of coversations too much but the times I did made me cringe, and when the men were talking about specific females, such as their wives, it made me very angry.

would lose respect for such a person immediately. There’s a difference between expressing one’s admiration for sexy women in general as Trump did and denigrating a woman in particular. Trump was celebrating women, not denigrating women in his lockerroom talk, imo. Had Trump denigrated Malania or one of his other wives then I would have a completely different attitude towards him. Closer to yours I suspect. But he didn’t, and I don’t.

Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 8:35 am

re: “UKers can make whatever they want of the election result, but it was in no way in support of Trump and Trumpism. Trump is deeply despised throughout the UK.”

Flies in the face of Nigel Farage appearing with President Trump on a stage a little while back, do you remember that or no?

Here’s a phone call with Pres. Trump and Nigel with Boris Johnson as a subject of discussion too: https://youtu.be/7ZfKUh1vbFA

While I’m here, Reagan compared a dung heap to a democratic platform, with style, in this allegory: https://youtu.be/QK3Eo9cScEQ

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  _Jim
December 15, 2019 10:24 am

Nigel Farage is one person: not everyone here hates Trump but a very considerable majority of people find him highly objectionable.

They include a sizable number who are grateful that he is President, not Killary Clinton.

They prefer a misogynist who wants detente with Russia than a nutcase who was salivating to nuke them….

Andy Mansell
Reply to  _Jim
December 17, 2019 9:39 am

I know many people here in the UK, and not one of them ‘despises’ Trump- in fact most admire him for A) not being a career ‘slimeball’ politician, rather a businessman who has made actual, real decisions in the real world, and 2) actually trying to get on with what he proposed instead of virtue signalling constantly, but then I don’t know any elite, university educated Corbynistas. All I saw from Clinton was slander, showbiz pals, utter contempt for ordinary people and posturing- as opposed to Trump who got out and about and talked, (and it seems, listened), to the peasants. Quite why the media over here still want to interview her and fawn over her is beyond me, but it’s embarrassing. So far, Trump has shown that he has the ability to get world leaders to talk about what he wants. Of course, the left see this as ranting from a stupid man, but that’s all they want to see.

michael hart
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 8:41 am

Don’t exaggerate. The Brexit Party were always just a single issue protest party. Nobody in this country, left or right, ever saw them differently. Their job was over once it was clear that Boris in charge of the Conservatives would get the job done.

With this in mind, Boris was quite sensible in rejecting any attempted influence from outside, real or perceived. It certainly didn’t help Obama’s case when he previously attempted to stick his oar in. Boris Johnson will get on just fine with President Trump.

Reply to  michael hart
December 16, 2019 12:01 am

It was still important to have their presence in the background. The established parties needed to know that the electorate had a way to express their displeasure should our exit from the EU not happen.

Reply to  michael hart
December 16, 2019 2:25 pm

I can understand your desire to forget Theresa May as soon as possible, but not too long ago the Tories were not about to deliver Brexit.

Conservatives were a remainer party, until they saw the Brexit Party win so many seats in the previous elections. They only got rid of Ms May because of an existential threat from a new party.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 9:07 am

Duane You’re so ignorant, it’s laughable.
Your claims can easily be shredded with evidence.

– Which party intends to pack the US supreme Court with liberal justices, justices with “living constitution” views that encourages judicial activism rather than faithful readings of written law, the constitution and court precedents? Versus party wants judges and Supreme Court justices who will defend the original meanings of black and white written text?
– Which party proposed a constitutional amendment to amend the 1st Amendment to limit political speech?
– Which party is actively trying an end around on the constitutionally mandated Electoral College for electing the President?
– Which party actively seeks to undo the last 2016 election instead of the voters?
– Which party allowed the last president to enter into treaties with foreign powers without Congressional approval by playing words games with the word “treaty?”

And that’s just a short list of 6. Dozens more hard evidence of examples it is the Democrats who hate the US constitution.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 9:58 am

Duane, your said, “The right wingnut Trump voters are the ones who despise and constantly work to ignore our Constitution and its democratic republican underpinnings.”

It is obvious that your bias, and hatred of the right, has blinded you to any sense of balance or nuance. Once again you have presented a dogmatic statement of how you view the world, as though your assumed superior intellect and wisdom should be accepted without criticism. Your hubris is astounding. Rest assured that I value your unsupported opinions with the same respect warranted for what I have paid to read them — virtually nothing.

Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 10:16 am

I have read reports from the UK that, though the Brexit Party did not win any seats, they provided an alternative to those life-long Labour voters who could no longer stomach Labour but could not bring themselves to vote Tory, either. If true, the Brexit Party did play a large role in Labour’s defeat.
Btw, leaving the EU (Brexit) is the essence of Trumpism, whether you see it or not. There is nothing more Trumpian than wanting a Government for the people and not for the Elite Globalists and their minions and EU bureaucrats running their lives to the detriment of the people of the UK.
As for Republicans, Reagan was horrified at RINOs in his day and would be cheering Trump and his Republican Party of today. Trump has amply demonstrated that the RINOs of today, which is a term you misused, are no different than those of his day and he has exposed that there is precious little difference between today’s RINOs and Democrats, neither of whom are for the American people but for the rich and powerful only.
Also, if you really believe, “The right wingnut Trump voters are the ones who despise and constantly work to ignore our Constitution and its democratic republican underpinnings” even after watching the utter disregard for our Constitution and the Rule of Law having been horribly abused by the FBI, CIA, DOJ and Intel agencies under Obama along with the absurd efforts by House Democrats and their Impeachment attempts with not a single Law named and quoted as having been broken by Trump, you really need to reread our Constitution and our Founder’s comments on Impeachment and how it should never be used as a political weapon.
Your charge is laughable on its face, especially, when you consider that Hillary in 2016 and numerous Dem. candidates today want and have promised to change the 1st and 2nd Amendments, not by the means outlined in the Constitution, but by Executive Orders. Oh, and they want to eliminate the Electoral College and pack SCOTUS, as well.
I have no fears about Trump and today’s GOP undermining our Constitution but the Democrats terrifying in that regard.

michael hart
Reply to  KcTaz
December 15, 2019 12:16 pm

“I have read reports from the UK that, though the Brexit Party did not win any seats, they provided an alternative to those life-long Labour voters who could no longer stomach Labour but could not bring themselves to vote Tory, either.

Not much, KcTaz. As I alluded to above, they were a significant protest vote in the last national election of members of the European Parliament. This was an unexpected election in that we were voting for members of a parliament we were committed to leaving. Their jobs were thus temporary. Thus it was an almost unimaginable case of a free vote without consequences because any winners were expected to be made redundant within weeks or months. People standing on a Brexit ticket smashed all other parties. It was effectively a second referendum. So that was 2-0.

Fast forward and come this election for UK MPs in the UK parliament, it was clear that only the Conservative Party under BoJo was likely to come close to fulfilling what the majority of voters wanted vis-a-vis Brexit. The voters spoke again. 3-0

If you scroll down on this BBC website
you will see that not only did the Brexit Party score a tiny vote nationwide, they also scored best in areas where the Conservative Party were already handsome winners. The voters knew that the job of the Brexit Party was done. It seems to be a great example of voters not being fooled and not being distracted by parties that might split their vote.

To summarize, this is a +many for voters vs conniving politicians, and voters vs even less-trustworthy media coverage. This is where the real analogy with Trump voters can be found.

Roger Knights
Reply to  michael hart
December 16, 2019 6:03 pm

“they also scored best in areas where the Conservative Party were already handsome winners.”

But in areas where the Conservatives were NOT handsome winners—a crucial 50 or so—they tipped the balance and won the districts for them, by drawing off Labourite Leavers who would never vote for a Tory. A Guardian article explained it well:

“The Brexit party folded, but make no mistake: Farage won it for Johnson
Darren Loucaides, The Guardian

Whatever Nigel Farage does next, his decision to stand aside against 317 Tories and target Labour leavers was monumental”

Tom Foley
Reply to  KcTaz
December 15, 2019 1:40 pm

Really guys, Trump’s not in it for ‘Government for the people’, Trump’s in it for Trump. If he was in it ‘for the people’ he should have stood down when 3 million more people voted for Clinton than for him. He’ll try and override the Constitution when it suits him.

Still it is interesting that the Democrats have failed to find any better options that the motley crew vying for candidature. Why is a great country unable to produce great leaders. Great = honorable as well as competent who are respected by all sides.

Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 3:05 pm

Love people who are ignorant of the constitution and its adoption. Read the Federalist papers. The founders, God bless them, configured the electoral college to keep the largest by population states, NY and Virginia at the time, from dominating the PRESIDENTIAL election. The HOUSE is the peoples house, by popular vote. Originally the SENATE was the States representative in the legislature, since bastardized by an amendmend for direct election of Senators, which weakend the state’ authority and has lead to all the unconstitutional stuff the federal government does today.

The US is a REPUBLIC. Trump won the election 30 to 20 by states. Republicans fully control 28 state legislatures. Democrats less that 20, others are split, like the US congress at this time.

So your Hillary won by 3 million, as you stated, that was in primarily in California and NY (over 5 million total ahead in those 2 states), you know the high population states, which the founders DIDN’T want to be able to control the rest of the country.

Look of the map of votes by COUNTY. I really like this map because it shows how the highly concentrated democrat controlled areas almost wipe out the rest of the vote totals.


And BTW, those places are the easiest for machine politics to carry their voters to the polls, and like during the first Bush W election, to stuff ballot boxes to try to steal an election. 7 House races flipped in California after the polls closed due to Democrat “ballot harvesting”. Vote by population and states that do things like let FELONS and ILLEGALS vote will have an outsized influence. They already do due to apportionment of representatives because the census numbers are based on residents, not citizens giving sanctuary states over representation. Why do you think the Dems and liberal judges blocked a citizenship question on the census?

Trump was and is in it for the People, not the government as unconstitutionally constituted at this time. Another 5 years of originalist judges and all the “laws” instituted by activist judges will be overturned in a cascade of court decisons that will return the country to it’s constitutional foudation, God willing.

That is why Democrats are so much against Trump, they thught they had total control of the country. If they had taken the senate and had Hillary, with the balance in the courts already leaning substantially liberal, by now, private ownership of guns would be illegal, free speach of anything but leftist views would be illegal. On and on ad infinitum.

Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 3:15 pm

I understand that President Roosevelt was also elected by the Electoral College despite having a minority of the votes. I think President Kennedy may also have been in the category. So its OK if Democrat presidents who get a minority of votes win through the Electoral College but not if they are Republicans.

And why is it disgusting womanizing by a Republican president , but perfectly OK for Governor/President Cinton. Personally, I think they are both grubs, but one of them at least seems to have a grip on democracy rather more than the other. And that surname isn’t Clinton.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 7:20 pm

“Why is a great country unable to produce great leaders. Great = honorable as well as competent who are respected by all sides.”

Is there a human being on Earth that meets that criteria?

Donald Trump *is* a great leader, it’s just that you can’t see it.

You’ll be waiting a long time for the perfect person to come along and govern all of us.

In the meantime, we will have to make do with what we have. Fortunately, we got lucky in 2016 and picked a real leader for once.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 8:49 pm

You claimed, “…, Trump’s not in it for ‘Government for the people’, Trump’s in it for Trump. ” Perhaps you should explain how that squares with Trump declining the rather substantial salary that he is entitled to. It would seem to me that someone only interested in maximizing his personal gain would take the money and run with it.

There was no reason for Trump to ‘stand down’ when everyone knew that the president is elected by the Electoral College and NOT by popular vote. Knowing that, he campaigned appropriately. One can only speculate why Clinton did not show a similar grasp of a winning strategy.

You also remarked, without any evidence, “He’ll try and override the Constitution when it suits him.” I hope that you didn’t pay a lot of money for your crystal ball.

Reply to  Tom Foley
December 16, 2019 9:02 am

Per my earlier comment, see the following link on free speech. The Dems are for controling opposition speech, like all totalitarian authoritarian peoples and governments. Just think if Hillary had won! That would be all you could do, think, because speech would get you in trouble, 49% saying put you in jail, the same people who want felons to vote.


Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 12:08 pm

Actually, Trump is mainly despised in the UK by the very same voters who opposed brexit and voted for Labour or Liberal parties.

Andy in Epsom
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 12:58 pm

Trump is definitely not despised throughout the UK. That is another pathetic twitter theme that has been repeated so many times that people think it has become fact. Most of the people here are actually quite reserved and keep their opinions to themselves and it is only muskspreaders from all sides that shout and scream in public. but a few people keep saying the same comments to a forgiving media and it gets accepted.

Phils Dad
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 5:27 pm

Duane is right that Trump and Boris are very different but wrong to suggest that more than a few people throughout the UK have strong feelings (either way) about the current President of the USA. He (maybe she one day) is the choice of the American People for whom we have high regard.

The reaction was the same to President Obama when he expressed his views before the Brexit referendum. “Mr President, thank you for your considered opinion; but this is not your patch” (or other words conveying the same spirit). Boris simply amplified this at NATO.

William Astley
Reply to  Duane
December 15, 2019 6:06 pm

You must expand your news sources from the BBC and CNN.

The US needed a leader who could change things that are stopping progress, not by talk but by actually get problems solved, with the objective to kick start the US economy.

The US needed a leader who can take a pile of criticism as that is what is needed to change things. To get people thinking.

Sounds like what the UK needs. Someone who can get the job done. Get the economy going. A practical problem solver.

The US economy is at a 50 year high. Manufacturing jobs are returning to the US.

US is independent in energy.

Major US unions support the new US/Canada/Mexico deal, that protects American jobs for a race to the bottom for wages with the Mexico.

Trump had the internal fortitude to address the China trade deficit of $400 billion a year, the Chinese stealing of US trade secrets, and so on.

All of the fake news attack the China trade deal effort saying it would lead to a trade war. Phase 1 of the new fair to the US deal has been announced by both China and the US.

The Iran economy is in shambles and funding for terrorism in the region, I would hope is dropping.

Trump is addressing illegal immigration forcing Mexico to assist, increasing border staff, and so on. Illegal immigration greatest impact is on the current poor who must compete for limited low education jobs.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Duane
December 16, 2019 5:48 pm

“they also rejected the Brexit Party and its radical right wingnutism – they got zero seats in Parliament.”

Only because the UK lacks ranked-choice voting, so votes cast for a minor party are wasted. It’ll come; it’s coming across the U.S. NY City recently adopted it, by a 73% referendum.

Jim B
Reply to  Duane
December 17, 2019 1:23 pm

Duane: I guess I am one of those right wing nuts that you disparage. BS ChE, JD and self educated in the classics. I guess I am too stupid to cast a vote.
But I did not vote FOR Trump, I voted AGAINST a corrupt Democrat Party and it’s corrupt standard bearer.
Jim B

Jim B
Reply to  Duane
December 17, 2019 1:23 pm

Duane: I guess I am one of those right wing nuts that you disparage. BS ChE, JD and self educated in the classics. I guess I am too stupid to cast a vote.
But I did not vote FOR Trump, I voted AGAINST a corrupt Democrat Party and it’s corrupt standard bearer.
Jim B

Jim B
Reply to  Duane
December 17, 2019 1:23 pm

Duane: I guess I am one of those right wing nuts that you disparage. BS ChE, JD and self educated in the classics. I guess I am too stupid to cast a vote.
But I did not vote FOR Trump, I voted AGAINST a corrupt Democrat Party and it’s corrupt standard bearer.
Jim B

December 15, 2019 2:53 am

Bolshevik Broadcasting Commisariat

Bien vu !


Leo Smith
Reply to  Petit_Barde
December 15, 2019 3:53 am

Boy Buggering Club…

December 15, 2019 2:57 am

Actions speak louder than words. Bojo had better make sure his actions are good for the country and its people (except for the idiots in Extinction Rebellion and all the other members of the greenblob and supporters of the climate emergency scam).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 15, 2019 3:53 am

You mean “carbon neutral” by 2050? Hummm…he should talk less and do more in terms of what the, up to now, 3 democratic votes about the EU and a UK exit.

Get it done! Do a 1973 Ted Heath, just do it!

Patrick Healy
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 15, 2019 6:30 am

Great piece by Our Lordship as usual.
A couple of caveats.
I could not name ONE Tory MP who has the most rudimentary botanical science knowledge.
Like for instance I learned at primary school that Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
Blustering Boris is committed to carrying out the EU policy of returning the UK to the dark ages before grown up energy production was discovered/invented.

Patrick MJD,
It really bugs me when otherwise sensible commentators on MR Watts great website use terms like Climate Change, Carbon footprint, Carbon neutral, and Carbon, when referring to non existent global warming and Carbon Dioxide.
We are only helping the Marxist propaganda by using their terminology.
Happy Christmas in advance.

Reply to  Patrick Healy
December 15, 2019 12:41 pm

Patrick Healy

Thankfully, now, the UK is 100% Corbyn neutral.

Big Bubba
Reply to  HotScot
December 15, 2019 2:54 pm

‘100% Corbyn neutral’ That has to deserve an award for funniest bestest cleverest comment of the year!

Big Bubba
Reply to  HotScot
December 15, 2019 10:44 pm

Excellent puns should be attributed. One should not assume that everybody reads or listens to election victory speeches. T’was in fact a Boris post election speech which delivered the ‘Corbyn neutral’ pun. Kudos to Boris or the speech writers!

December 15, 2019 3:09 am

Needs fact checking. A study by Cardiff University showed that the BBC’s reporting is pro-Conservative and anti-Labour. The photo of child lying on a pile of coats on the hospital floor was not staged. That rumour came from a lie on Facebook which was propagated by BBC News journalist Laura Kuenssburg who later retracted it. The hospital had already apologised to the family concerned.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 4:10 am

Needs fact checking. Marxist academics will no more give a rational view of politics than “scientists” of climate change. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate the BBC’s bias, e.g. in the selection of panels for Question Time, which have overwhelmingly favoured Remain supporters, or the frequency of interruptions by Andrew Marr of those he interviews.

Whilst the child was turfed out of the bed he was initially awarded in favour of a more urgent case, there was no need for him to be on the floor, and there is no doubt that the incident was heavily politicised.

Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 4:42 am

A study by the Cardiff University finding the BBC to be pro-Conservative tells more about the stance of the University than anything else.

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Analitik
December 15, 2019 5:07 am

The reputation of academia is now in tatters. It is a serious global problem.

Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
December 15, 2019 10:22 am

With people like this in the universities & schools, what hope is there?


Reply to  Analitik
December 15, 2019 5:20 pm

Well the BBC was to the right of those at the university so you can see how that made it pro Conservative 🙂

Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 6:10 am

What about the plastic chair leg visible on the left? The story I heard was that the kid had been seen and had been assessed as ‘non urgent’. so was waiting till he could be dealt with later. He was lying on the floor because it was more comfortable.

John Small
Reply to  Disputin
December 15, 2019 11:40 am

Has the hospital commented at all, they surely know what was the actual situation and, if this story is untrue, would want to defend their reputation? I have not seen or heard anything about this until this piece from Lord Monkton, fir whom I have great respect on climate matters.

Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 6:10 am

This is the Cardiff report which dates back to 2012


Even BBC commentators Like John Humphreys admits the BBC is institutionally socialist. One of its guest editors this Christmas is Greta, so its ‘woke’ as well.


Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 7:22 am

Standard left wing fare.
Coverage doesn’t constantly portray conservatives as pure evil, therefore the coverage is pro-conservative.

William Astley
Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 8:38 am

Have you actually watched the BBC? Read BBC internet world news?

Of course there are no comments allowed on BBC internet stories. The BBC are concerned there may be off message facts and discussions.

Come on man…

BBC news is news that is filtered and manipulate to push an agenda that cannot be criticised.

PBS in America was become the same.

Twenty years ago…

PBS newshour was a great source for informed discussion about world and US issues and US and world news events.

Facts, issues, and always representation from both sides and neutral moderation of discussions. i.e. more or less unbiased.

PBS now is a factless mouthpiece for the Democrat party almost as obvious as CNN.

Reply to  Tony Hazzard
December 15, 2019 11:08 am

I was on an Alaskan cruise in September of this year. I have great pictures of the ceiling of my cabin as both my husband and I got the flu and were quarantined for four days. I’m a news junkie and the only news channel available was the BBC. I watched 10 minutes of it and couldn’t take anymore of their Left-wing bias and never turned it on again. The folks who did that survey must be to the Left of Stalin if they think the BBC is conservative.

Reply to  KcTaz
December 16, 2019 2:47 pm

I am so sorry that you could not enjoy your Alaskan cruise because of the flu. That is so sad.

But I would have thought you at least might have been able to enjoy the BBC if you feverish!

Robert Ernest
December 15, 2019 3:16 am

Best Lord Monckton post here … ever!

Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 3:16 am

I don’t take anything written by anyone at face value, so I checked what had been written about the boy on the hospital floor. There appear to be about equal numbers claiming and denying that it was staged and was fake news. So I’m neutral. Anyone using this as propaganda either way loses credibility with me.

Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 7:09 am

Tom Foley December 15, 2019 at 3:16 am
I don’t take anything written by anyone at face value, so I checked what had been written about the boy on the hospital floor. There appear to be about equal numbers claiming and denying that it was staged and was fake news. So I’m neutral. Anyone using this as propaganda either way loses credibility with me.

I like your style; consume ALL the news and then make a decision based on – what? The sheer VOLUME of one ‘side’ versus the other?

I am quite frankly shocked that you assume ALL ‘sources’ have equal validity, NONE having apparently garnered any ‘record of accuracy’ or ‘track record’ from past reporting of events.

I would understand your approach were you to have just landed on earth, and had no past which to recollect, no past knowledge of the performance of the various ‘nooze’ sources which you consume …

Reply to  _Jim
December 15, 2019 10:37 am

Sorry Jim, but Tom is right. He is esentially ignoring the whole “boy on floor” thing because he has no way to know what is true, and cannot trust the “news” Neither can you. Were you there? Then you don’t know anything either! Think of NBC and pictures in Lebanon showing the same guy running around with the same baby in multiple scenarios that they used in the US because it fit their anti-Israel bias before the other pictures showed up on the internet. Obviously faked. Nick Sandmann and that whole fake news thing. Without the modern cell phone with digital a/v recording capabilities, the false narrative of the hate filled MAGA hat wearer would have been allowed to rule the day, not the truth as per the videos, of the obnoxious, lying (as proven in his TV interviews) “native rights” ACTIVIST attempting to initiate a violent confrontation. Young Master Sandmann showed great restraint and self control to stand there when confronted. A testament to his upbringing. Fine paretns and school.

You say to Tom: “I like your style; consume ALL the news and then make a decision based on – what?” But he really didn’t make a decision, he remained neutral, i.e. no news was valid in his opinion. So the question to you Jim: List all news sources from most valid to east valid, then let us discuss your justifications. You have not just landed on earth so by your past knowledge this should be an easy endeavor.

In general I don’t believe most of what I see without some research and am even more skeptical of the decisions made of what is and is not covered in the “news”. Ex. CNN not covering L. Graham’s opening statement on Horowitz, but covering Nadler and Schiff on the Impeachment fiasco. Obvious bias that shields their viewers from a different perspective, inoculating them from serious questions on their 2 year coverage of the Russia/Trump hoax. How will them cover the prosecution of the pervayors of that hoax? CNN is in a very tough spot.

Retraction laws for the media need to be written requiring the retractions to appear in the same place and the same font and size as the lying original article article appeared. If the “news” ran multipe days, the retraction would need to be runthe same number of days. If the article was “true” because they quoted “sources” that were wrong, any future article using those sources would need to identify they are using “known unreliable” sources. Just think of the Times, WaPo, the major over sir networks and MSNBC and CNN. They would need to take the next 2 years at least issuing their retractions just on the Muller report and Spying.

Reply to  Drake
December 15, 2019 10:47 am

re: “Sorry Jim, but Tom is right. ”

In the overall, to his larger point? Note even REMOTELY.

Reply to  _Jim
December 17, 2019 8:30 am

My response was not “to his larger point”. It was to the above comment. I can agree with someone regarding one issue where I disagree with them on another.

Don’t conflate different strings. You are taking my support of his view that the MASS MEDIA are untrustworthy with his opinion of TRUMP as untrustworthy.

Read my earlier comment.

Reply to  Drake
December 15, 2019 11:05 am

So, Drake, it’s going to be ‘death by a thousand cuts’ spiced up with ‘and we’ll tie him up by filibustering as well’?

Either way, Drake, why don’t we hear about your ‘world view’, how do you view our (the US’s) founding documents, man’s relationship with a higher power (God) and his establishment of the one, true church (Catholicism and apostolic succession and all that)?

It’s just turned 65 deg F outside and I’m going out for a bike ride before expected ‘frontal passage’ later this afternoon.

Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 12:58 pm

Tom Foley

My wife is a senior academic at a prominent UK University. The department she ran until she stood down recently, pre-retirement, has trained tens of thousands of high quality Nursing staff to Degree level over the last 30 years.

Had that child been in distress he would never have been left there by the Nursing and Medical staff because, amongst other things, it would be considered a dereliction of their duty, risking revocation of their registration.

On the other hand, it’s not unusual to see brats who have little more than a cold, with their parents, demanding to be seen before seriously ill patients. Nursing and Medical staff learn rather quickly to prioritise these people, usually by the variety of triage systems all hospitals employ.

They frequently must ignore over dramatisation by children and their parents, in order that the parents can get back to watching TV.

December 15, 2019 3:18 am

That 72% of young people will become the voting majority within a decade or so. If we haven’t convinced them that AGW is a fraud within the next 3 or 4 years, then we never will, and AGW belief will become the law of the land when they are the voting majority. There are only a few people spreading the truth – Mr Monckton, WUWT, Andrew Bolt and a few others. I hope I’m wrong, but I dont like our chances at this stage, we just cant compete with the vast education, media, entertainment and political machine. Sorry for being negative.

Greg Woods
Reply to  ggm
December 15, 2019 7:05 am

I am hoping that Reality lands a hard blow before then….

Reply to  ggm
December 15, 2019 7:45 am

Many of them will have families to provide for by then – and mommy and daddy will no longer be around for support. Let us hope that they consider it more important to feed their children and keep them warm, than to prevent an uncertain event a hundred years in the future.

December 15, 2019 3:24 am

I think there is a very basic statement made in that the ‘Green’ vote of those that really belive it all was a little over 2.5%. Please let the MP’s notice this.

B d Clark
December 15, 2019 3:27 am

Johnsons ex environmental minister (who’s still in government ) has brought in a raft of measures to make farming all but obsolete except for the very rich ,all in the name of climate change administered through environmental policy. This is still to be seen if it will come to light.

The battle has already started in Wales with the announcement last week of a coming white paper, that will ban petrol and diesel garden machinery ban open fires and all but ban woodburners, local community science councils to educate local communitys (brain washing) exactly like the article on Africa published here yesterday,

Also last week the labour government here in Wales (we still have a labour government in Wales after the general election) announced a review of its latest environmental measures aimed at farming after a outcry from farmers, telling the government they are unworkable and the costs to comply would see many farms go out of business . All of the above measures were without consultation with the public and farmers, there are hidden consultations that the public are not made aware of, were the majority of responders are environmental groups.



The Welsh government are following the UK governments proposals who in turn are following UN policys
The Welsh government are pushing the the UK proposals into law by 1st Jan 2020 (a test run) we see this is now under review.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  B d Clark
December 15, 2019 4:13 am

I can foresee Cardiff grinding to a halt with tractor traffic jams. It’s already happening in the Netherlands, France and Germany.

Eric Vieira
December 15, 2019 3:28 am

Great text Sir Monkton! I would add to your last paragraph two words:
“In the long run, democracy (and science) cannot survive unless there is open debate…”
The green leftists have been trying to stifle any form of open debate, even using fascist tactics.
The majority of the British people have shown proof of common sense. I hope that in the end
the latter will also prevail.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
December 15, 2019 7:26 am

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised when the left uses fascist tactics.

Andy in Epsom
December 15, 2019 3:38 am

Sadly the vote will have little or no effect on current policies. what has occured in the UK is very prevalent to the global trend inasmuch that what is perceived to be the right wing choice for electors to choose has moved quite a long way to the left. this is not the conservative party of Margaret Thatcher but more like the Labour party of Harold Wilson. There is no real right wing political party in the United Kingdom at the moment but that is also true of so many other countries.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy in Epsom
December 15, 2019 8:30 am

“There is no real right wing political party in the United Kingdom at the moment but that is also true of so many other countries.”

That’s my impression, too.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 15, 2019 9:27 am

A great many people of my (Facebook) acquaintance believe that the Tories have moved to the far- right. It all depends on where you are standing. To some people, anyone who doesn’t think ‘profit’ is a dirty word is far-right.

Andy in Epsom
Reply to  Susan
December 15, 2019 12:50 pm

I am and always have been a Labour supporter. My family were all miners up to my father who moved south. I have been watching how all of the parties have moved to the left. does anyone wonder why the Communist Party of Great Britain no longer exists but it is because they took over the Labour party. The conservative party are now middle of the road at best but to the right of all the other parties in the UK. The tories have drifted left but the is a bit of them that have held ground.

Reply to  Andy in Epsom
December 15, 2019 1:09 pm

Andy in Epsom

So why are you still a labour supporter if the Conservatives now occupy the space labour used to, and labour have now lurched towards communism?

Russ Wood
Reply to  Susan
December 16, 2019 1:27 am

If one stands at the North Pole, EVERYTHING is South. And I’ve read a definition that so many of the Leftists seem to be standing at the “Left pole”, which makes everything seem to be to the Right. This whole Right/Far Right thing is therefore simply a viewpoint, which may be dismissed because the proposers don’t know where they’re standing!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 15, 2019 1:04 pm

Tom Abbott

Seek out the UK Libertarian Party.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
December 15, 2019 7:35 pm

HotScot, I think the human-caused climate change narrative has caused those on the political Right to move to the Left at least as regards policy concerning human-caused climate change. The solutions proposed are authoritarian and those on the Right who believe in this narrative think authoritarian moves are the only way to go and so they support them even though these are not conservative policies. Conservative principles take a back seat to saving the Earth from CO2..

I never hear any British politicians saying taxes need to be cut and regulations need to be reduced. Do they ever support such things? That’s all you hear out of conservatives in the U.S.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Andy in Epsom
December 16, 2019 8:14 am

Totally correct. The Tories are really a continuation of Blair’s New Labour – hence the label of Blue Labour. With Corbyn – a raving marxist/communist – it is fair to say they are Red Labour. Because there is no choice and people vote like sheep, the two main parties hold their seat numbers. What is not being noticed in many of the northern longtime Labour seats is a change in the make-up of the population away from working class. New housing has been built and new service sectors jobs have come so the voters have become more Tory. Had more effort been put in, the Tories could have won a few more seats they might have considered unwinnable. But for the Brexit Party morons taking votes, we could have seen the back of Yvette Pixie Balls-Cooper, a favourite for the leadership of Labour.

December 15, 2019 3:45 am

The C4 ice sculpture was a block of the world – not a likeness of Boris!

It is funny though that the only accusations you ever hear reported about the BBC is that Laura Kuenssberg is Tory-biased (complete nonsense).

When ever left/liberal complaints are made against the BBC you general lysee a fast retraction and grovelling apology. Whenever right leaning complaints (climate change inaccuracy esp.) complaints are made you hit a brick wall and the waste bin file.

Apparently the new version of Worzel Gummage will be featuring climate change and the problems it causes farmers – more child brain washing.

Immigration is a serious issue. Again this is twisted as positive – providing the staff for the NHS, yet in some areas like maternity, foreign born parents have 1/3 of the babies.

Peter Charles
December 15, 2019 3:47 am

From its very inception the BBC has been the propaganda arm of the Establishment and has never diverted from that remit. So what is the Establishment? Well it is the consensus of those with power, money and influence, analogous to today’s 1%, the Alt. State, Deep State or whatever you want to call the entities the political class actually work for. Never forget for a moment that they DO NOT WORK FOR US!

I suspect another review will find it a ‘treasure’ or whatever. Johnson may decriminalise the non-payment element, which will provide more jobs for the bailiffs and also likely remove the current protections for those that have TVs but do not watch broadcast content since currently the enforcers either have to prove you were watching without a licence or get you to admit such. Decriminalising will make such matters a civil argument which knowing the quality of magistrate we have will mean if you own a TV without a licence you will be considered guilty on the grounds of the balance of probabilites. Not exactly what people will expect is it? But that’s politics for you.

Peter Wood
Reply to  Peter Charles
December 15, 2019 6:13 am

Same Establishment propaganda is true of NPR, which consistently promotes the “climate crisis” narrative attributed to Liberals. NPR also frequently cites conservative think tanks (Peterson Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc.) in its reporting. The Washington Establishment is undeniably bi-partisan, whatever your bloggers may believe, and fully in step with the Atlanticist oligarchy.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peter Wood
December 15, 2019 9:40 am

And for as long as I can remember, NPR has supported the position that they never saw a proposal for gun control that they didn’t like — and promote.

December 15, 2019 4:05 am

Are you sure Boris did collude with the Russians to steal the election 😉

Reply to  Derg
December 15, 2019 5:44 am

Some people colluded to destroy the fracking prospects in the UK, that’s known beyond doubt.

Reply to  Derg
December 15, 2019 7:41 am


Coeur de Lion
December 15, 2019 4:12 am

It’s worrying that price increase in electricity and imposition of smart meters hasn’t yet produced general public antipathy. But when decarbonisation starts to cost jobs we may see a reaction which will feature increased traction for sensible points about climate change and its harmlessness.

December 15, 2019 4:17 am

Clearly, we’re all here sensible and intelligent readers who sample both sides of the argument ?

Thing is, the sites frequented by left of centre folk, have been complaining of BBC bias, but completely the opposite of the article above, ie, the BBC is biased towards the Conservatives.

So maybe one would have to conclude, that in the political sphere at least, the BBC are by virtue of being damned boy both sides, doing a relatively decent job ? In other areas, not the least their handling of CC, they are awful.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Fanakapan
December 15, 2019 4:43 am

Not really. Criticism alleging right wing bias comes from the extreme left, despite their views getting an airing (which is denied entirely to the extreme right), and many of their political journalists, editors and controllers having a history of left wing politics, ranging from former Maoist Andrew Marr, through former Labour minister James Parnell. There is a distinct BBC party line which doesn’t mimic any particular party, but is strongly left of centre, pro big state, the EU, authoritarian, prepared to give extremist greens a hearing, pro immigration and diversity, willing to ignore the problems that brings, largely anti-Christian, pro Muslim, etc.

Reply to  It doesn't add up...
December 15, 2019 9:24 am

I am with “It doesn’t add up” and not with “Fanakapan”. The Left complain of BBC bias ritualistically, precisely so as to allow the BBC to say it is getting criticism from both sides, so it must be in the center. However, if proof positive of its bias on the climate question is needed, go to the website where its editorial guidelines for its journalists are displayed. You will see they have been rewritten to permit journalists to reflect only the official climate Communist Party Line. Skeptical viewpoints are no longer permitted, however sound or well researched or consistent with real-world data.

Reply to  Fanakapan
December 15, 2019 9:24 am

The Right has been complaining and being ignored for so long that they’ve stoped bothering. Politicians have been too scared to deal with it. However they may have crossed a tipping point at the run up to this election.

December 15, 2019 4:18 am

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Reply to  fretslider
December 15, 2019 6:34 am

re: “fretslider December 15, 2019 at 4:18 am
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss”

With that kind of thinking, how did the United States of America come about? Especially, look at and READ the federalist papers …

Chris Wright
December 15, 2019 4:30 am

Christopher, I would have been a life-long Conservative voter, but some years ago they lost my vote due to their barking-mad climate policies. I decided that, at minimum, to get my vote back again, they would have to promise to scrap the Climate Change Bill, which will achieve nothing but human misery.

But I think Boris is our best hope of regaining some measure of climate sanity. Deep down, he may actually be a sceptic. A few years ago, when writing in the Telegraph, he described climate alarmists as “doomsters”, one of his favourite words. I’m very disappointed when he spouts the usual hysterical climate clap-trap – but maybe he’s just paying lip service to the dogma without really believing it. Margaret Thatcher used climate alarmism in her fight against the miners – but later she became sceptical, referring to global warming as “hot air”. I hope Boris follows the same path – but a lot quicker! Because of this I did break my rule and I voted Conservative. But, sadly, it may be the last time.

To paraphrase a witty comment here at WUWT: the chances of making Britain carbon neutral by 2050 is a big fat zero. But Boris has already succeeded in making Britain Corbyn free!

I also hope that Boris can effectively fight against the socialism and political correctness that is slowly strangling our country. I hope he will fight for perhaps the most important freedoms: the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech.

Once again, I’d like to thank you, from one Christopher to another, for your amazing work over the years. I’m sure we will win in the end – as the truth always wins – but sadly I may not live to see it. But at least we will see Britain’s Independence Day on 31st January. And a huge thank you to Anthony and all the others at WUWT. And finally, a very happy Christmas to you all!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 15, 2019 5:33 am

Corbyn was a gleeful IRA supporter in the lead up to the 1983 election and his policies/thoughts etc haven’t changed since other than changing terrorist group.

Chris Quartermaine
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 15, 2019 2:38 pm

Yes, like you I ‘held my nose’ and voted Conservative. I would have voted Brexit, but that would only have helped the Labour under our voting system. As it turned out, Labour got in in my constituency by 200 votes, the only Labour constituency in North Wales.
I am still waiting for any media organ here to be open to a climate debate. I hold no prospect of it until the climate cycle turns down again.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Chris Quartermaine
December 16, 2019 2:16 am

I would have voted Brexit – mine is a very safe Conservative seat – but there was no candidate in our constituency. However, there was an Independent Brexit candidate. I would have voted for him, but his leaflet contained some climate nonsense, so he was out.
Ironically, I actually learned that Boris was contemplating scrapping the licence fee here at WUWT, and that decided me to vote for him. I’m retired, and pretty angry that they are no longer making the fee free over a certain age. I couldn’t care less about the money, but I strongly object to being forced to give money to the obnoxious BBC that routinely flouts with apparent impunity its founding charter.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 17, 2019 11:27 pm

I’ve just been told that Boris is ‘literally’ Hitler and now I’m really confused- I thought Donald Trump was ‘literally’ Hitler? To add to my confusion, when I asked about this I was told that I’m a Nazi which is really upsetting- I didn’t even know! It’s amazing how you can just drift along with no idea of your murderous proclivities…..

December 15, 2019 4:33 am

Thank you, Christopher.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 15, 2019 6:48 am

Always appreciated.

December 15, 2019 4:59 am

Surprisingly, the BBC (an experienced reporter) have an article warming the US Democrats to pay attention to the British election result, where the move to the far left of the Labour Party was severely punished:


It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 15, 2019 5:19 am

Another of their political stances. John Sopel, their Washington correspondent is a Never Trumper, unable to do anything else but sneer. No intelligent, rational analysis of the US emerges. However, perhaps it is easier for the BBC to point up the dangers for the Democrats while they struggle to work out how to promote their own agenda in the UK, so clearly rejected in the election.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 15, 2019 10:19 am

Agreed Jon Sopel finds it quite impossible to conceal his contempt for Trump. His reporting is so one-sided I usually rush to switch over. However, BBC also has (or had) on their news programming a slot reporting from Washington which was called, I think, ‘Beyond 100 days’. I found that much more even-handed in its treatment of US politics, and much more informative, and I feel obliged to point this out.

The Sopel article does read like serious advice to the Democrats not to go with Bernie or Warren, but I guess he’s entitled to do that. As long as he offers some gentle help for the Republicans, though, on how to emulate Boris’s victory!

Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 15, 2019 11:10 am

Old Rush Limbaugh has always said that if Liberals were to run on their actual policies theyn would get creamed. The problem is that the conservatives only got 43% of the vote in the UK. If they had the 2 party US system they would have been slaughtered in a presidential race since MOST of the side parties are leftist. The UK is a majority socialist society, no doubt. If Johnson does not throw off Scotland and N Ireland, the end is inevitable. A reduced England and Wales could survive as a reasonable moderate country after throwing off the far leftist regions. Also,my understanding is that Scotland and N Ireland take more from the cofers than they put in by a good margin. Ex. For Scotland government:


For N Irish people:


England and Wales needs to excape from those debtor nations, much as Canada needs to throw off Quebec where conservatives got %16 of the vote last election, even though they got a plurality of the vote overall at 34% nationwide. Both to get rid of their liberal/socialist voters and their “Taker” mentality. Let them learn to stand on their own feet.

A quick search for Quebec re excess to them from the national government:


Reply to  Drake
December 15, 2019 11:13 am

re: “Old Rush Limbaugh has always said that if Liberals were to run on their actual policies theyn would get creamed. The problem is that the conservatives only got 43% of the vote in the UK. If they had the 2 party US system they would have been …”

Simplistic assumption/analysis that assumes a plethora of ‘fixed’ rather than variable and highly dynamic parameters …

Steve Lindsey
December 15, 2019 5:01 am

I’ve been following this site for years and am generally in agreement with it’s aims, however, of late I have become concerned about some of the articles. This article contains downright lies, for example that Boris was replaced by an ice structure that looked like him – he wasn’t. I’m glad that Corbyn was defeated but let’s have some honesty.

Reply to  Steve Lindsey
December 15, 2019 9:21 am

Apologies to Mr Lindsey: I ought to have said that the ice-sculpture was “intended to take the place of Boris Johnson”, not to look like” him.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
December 15, 2019 12:33 pm

Anyone who would honestly mistake an ice sculpture for a real person has a lot more problems than belief in a Climate religion.

In a rebuttal it is usually best to put one’s strongest arguments forward.
If that’s the best “downright lies” that Mr Lindsey can point out, then he objectively has no case in his accusation about the veracity of your article.

December 15, 2019 5:06 am

UK election results – divided reaction


Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 15, 2019 6:13 am

comment image

Kenan Meyer
December 15, 2019 5:21 am

CUI BONO? China obviously. I have been asking myself quite a while now: since this is so obvious, why is it that nobody ever asks the question whether China’s communists might be a big sponsor of the marxist turmoil running throughout western civilization?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Kenan Meyer
December 15, 2019 5:40 am

No, I suspect, as in Australia, they are buying up as much infrastructure, property, industry as they can. No need for turmoil as they own and supply, practically, everything in Australia. Shake and repeat in Europe, Africa etc…

Martin A
December 15, 2019 5:35 am

When Boris Johnson refused to take part in a Channel 4 leaders’ debate, on the ground that the channel was so prejudiced, it demonstrated his point by replacing him on air with an ice-sculpture intended to look like him.

Note that it was a debate on Michael Grove, who had been the Government’s Environment Secretary, and who was still a govenment minister, turned up to participate in the debate. He was turned away by the program editor and the ice sculpture was placed in the pretence that the Government would not participate.

Reply to  Martin A
December 15, 2019 8:07 am


The ice sculpture was of the world, not of Boris. It was a climate change debate and obviously intended to make a point as it warmed and melted under the warm studio lights.

Channel 4 had INTENDED to use an actual representation of Boris and Farage but Ofcom (the media regulator) said that would show bias


Michael Gove -as a former environment secretary-would have been an ideal replacement and turned up to the studios. His participation was refused as the debate was intended for leaders only.


It doesn't add up...
Reply to  tonyb
December 15, 2019 12:03 pm

Interesting features of the ice sculpture of the globe were its omissions of Israel and Antarctica and the Americas and Australia from its portrayal of the land mass.


Tim Spence
December 15, 2019 5:43 am

The Fascists never went away, they’ve come out of the shadows for the push toward world government.

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
December 15, 2019 5:49 am

I’m praying for you guys. Don’t lose hope.

Btw: Please write more articles Christopher. I always learn something new.

Chris Ainsworth
December 15, 2019 6:10 am

As someone living in the UK’s northern wastelands I can seriously say that there is a complete disconnect with the illiberal and elitist attitude that pedals all the snowflake liberalism of London and it’s environs. They regard the north as uneducated Neanderthals whenever we dare to disagree with their London centric outlook. The UK is definitely NOT a United Kingdom and Boris has his work cut out on many more fronts than just the current climate panic. He has been ‘lent’ his vote by many who are watching very carefully what he does with it.

Reply to  Chris Ainsworth
December 15, 2019 8:20 am

And on green issues, he clearly said right from the outset, he will back the UK being carbon neutral by 2050

Reply to  griff
December 15, 2019 10:22 am

‘fraid your right, Griff. He’s a pragmatist. Won’t see any advantage in swimming against the tide. Not yet, anyway.

Reply to  griff
December 15, 2019 11:46 am

But I’d bet you didn’t vote for a Tory.

Reply to  griff
December 15, 2019 5:38 pm

Which is political speak for never … bet you UK isn’t even close by 2049 and will only fail at 2050 🙂

Griff did you go out and join the “not my Prime Minister” protest.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris Ainsworth
December 15, 2019 9:44 am

What you are describing sounds a lot like what in the US is called “Fly Over Country.”

December 15, 2019 7:10 am

One thing is certain. Pre-election political polls in Britain were once again demonstrated to be every bit as skewed by the partisanship/ideology of the sponsor as those in the US. Prior to this election, even the day before, I was reading how very “tight” the race was. The next morning I awoke to exit polls and then actual results that clearly indicated a landslide. It has led me to be as skeptical about the polling that is done there on environmental, energy, and climate change issues every bit as much as I am about our polls in the general press on such issues.

December 15, 2019 7:17 am

Leftists like to claim that they are the only ones who care about the poor and workers, however the poor and workers always suffer the most after communists come to power.

Bro. Steve
December 15, 2019 7:40 am

We can only wish disconnecting Big Media from tax revenue would change outcomes. It will not. The denizens of Deep Left are true believers. They have been schooled in statism since they were weaned. The government school systems in both the US and the UK have seen to that. The rabid Bolsheviks operating the American mainstream media never need to persuade their workers to embrace socialist views. They were raised to believe them from kindergarten on, and they do. The only revenue change that would really make a difference would be outright abolition of government education.

December 15, 2019 7:58 am

Most of the British society was angry at the relentless obstruction of the Brexit process by the ‘deep state’ and establishment. And punished mentality of ‘we know what is better for you’.

Still, climate policy is a different kind of animal and Tories play here in the main choir. Maybe not the leading voice as Greens or Lib Dems but the direction is clear – ‘carbon free’ future.

Tom Abbott
December 15, 2019 7:59 am

From the article: “occupied Tibet”

Thank you for speaking the truth, sir! 🙂

December 15, 2019 8:17 am

What does it mean? It means a UK dedicated to becoming greener and carbon neutral by 2050.

This is from his very first speech after the election victory

(And we will deliver) “…Colossal new investments in infrastructure, in science, using our incredible technological advantages to make this country the cleanest, greenest on earth with the most far-reaching environmental programme.
“And you the people of this country voted to be carbon neutral in this election.
“You voted to be carbon neutral by 2050 and we will do it. You also voted to be Corbyn neutral by Christmas by the way and we’ll do that too.”

Reply to  griff
December 15, 2019 9:50 am

griff, it means he’s going with NUCLEAR as *the* energy solution!!


“You know the book , ‘To Serve Man’, it’s a cookbook!”

Reply to  _Jim
December 15, 2019 11:51 am

I think he intends to go with fusion as he has allocated £250 million to develop small fusion reactors


Patrick MJD
Reply to  tonyb
December 15, 2019 4:05 pm

Fusion with GBP250 million when after billions being spent there still isn’t a working reactor that lasts more than 3 months and generates more power than it consumes.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 15, 2019 10:59 pm


don’t forget the UK has had a major fusion research centre for around 50 years


As I understand it the belief is now in smaller fusion plants rather than a giant one so the £250 million has to be seen in that context.

Personally I want grown up power stations with quantifiable amounts of reliable inexpensive power, so I tend to veer away from renewables (other than tidal) Lets see if fusion will fit the bill


Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 16, 2019 2:25 am

Research plants, NOTHING commercial scale. Either way, they do not last more than 3 months and do not produce any energy output more than they consume. I am happy to be proven wrong.

Reply to  griff
December 15, 2019 6:06 pm

Rule 1 never trust a politician when they make a policy outside the lifetime of most of the voters 🙂

December 15, 2019 8:41 am

It seems to me that the first step in ending the climate change madness in Britain is an effective Brexit where by the EU loses all legal say in British internal affairs. Are BJ and his Tories up to making that happen?

President Trump has already promised excellent support to BJ. He has already made it crystal clear to the EU that if they try to hammer Britain with oppressive terms to try and prevent exit that there will be reciprocity by the US. He is also trying to set up a situation where by Britain will become a conduit for a great deal of the trade that goes on between the US and Europe.

December 15, 2019 9:46 am

Daily Telegraph:
“Carrie Symonds praised the “inspiring” young people, who are following the lead of Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg, and welcomed the “next generation of environmental campaigners”.

Dominic Cummings blog:
” Hypothesis: 1) minimising nuclear/bio/AI risks and the potential for disastrous climate change requires a few very big things to change roughly simultaneously (‘normal’ political action will not be enough) and 2) this will require a weird alliance between a) technical people, b) political ‘renegades’, c) the public to ‘surround’ political Insiders locked into existing incentives:
Different ‘models for effective action’ among powerful people, which will only happen if either (A) some freak individual/group pops up, probably in a crisis environment or (B) somehow incentives are hacked. (A) can’t be relied on and (B) is very hard.
A new institution with global reach that can win global trust and support is needed. The UN is worse than useless for these purposes.
Public opinion will have to be mobilised to overcome the resistance of political Insiders, for example, regarding the potential for technology to bring very large gains ‘to me’ and simultaneously avert extreme dangers. This connects to the very widespread view that a) the existing economic model is extremely unfair and b) this model is sustained by a loose alliance of political elites and corporate looters who get richer by screwing the rest of us.
I have an idea about a specific project, mixing engineering/economics/psychology/politics, that might do this and will blog on it separately.
I suspect almost any idea that could do 1-3 will seem at least weird but without big changes, we are simply waiting for the law of averages to do its thing. We may have decades for AGI and climate change but we could collide with the WMD law of averages tomorrow so, impractical as this sounds, it seems to me people have to try new things and risk failure and ridicule.”

Reply to  Vuk
December 15, 2019 11:54 am

VUC you are talking Greek to me.. whta is it you are trying to say? Keep it simple.

Reply to  EdB
December 15, 2019 12:30 pm

The first one at day time takes care of Boris’s greatly improved satorial appearance.
The second one is allegedly the man in possession of the largest British brain since the late Stephen Hawking; some would say the most powerful man in the UK today who does all of the Boris’s thinking, since the PM has far more important things to do.

Reply to  EdB
December 15, 2019 1:16 pm

“you are talking Greek to me”.
more likely serbo-croat
His lordship is a classic Greek scholar, I only know the alphabet.

B d Clark
December 15, 2019 9:47 am

Looks like boris is looking into his mutterings on the BBC licence fee,
The BBC dont like it🤣


Clyde Spencer
December 15, 2019 9:48 am

“… audiatur et altera pars – let both sides be fully and fairly heard …”

Would it were that the democrats in the House of Representatives understood the wisdom of the above principle.

December 15, 2019 9:50 am

Er, even Tibet’s Dalai Lama praised nuclear.
Tibet and Xinjiang are doing nicely – MSM black propaganda and bluster, even Bannon’s movie, aside.

Would it not be better to say Occupied Britain?

After all, the European Defense Union is going full steam ahead in spite of Brexit, ask von der Leyen.
It took quite a while for Farage to speak out on that, too late it seems.
BoJo has not been quite clear on this matter.

What about that leaked (by Putin personally of course) Tory plan to privatize the NHS, Mrs. May’s protests notwithstanding?
And what about the state sponsored Integrity Initiative assault on Labour?

How quickly all this is buried under the “landslide”.

And that little detail of Bank-of-England Governor Mark Carney going to the UN as Climate Rep. for Guterres, replacing Sir Bloomberg who wants to buy 2020. Carney clearly said at the FED confab in August, the Green New Deal, together with a Synthetic Hegemonic Currency, SHC, to replace the Dollar is the game. von der Leyen in in that game too with a French aspiration for a Digital Euro.

All of this sprouted in the City of London, which BoJo surely knows about.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  bonbon
December 15, 2019 4:02 pm

“bonbon December 15, 2019 at 9:50 am

What about that leaked (by Putin personally of course) Tory plan to privatize the NHS, Mrs. May’s protests notwithstanding?”

Pure scaremongering. This has been “raised” by the left as a Tory plan since 1979, and every election since. It wasn’t going to happen then and it’s not going to happen now. Lets not talk about Corbyn’s support of the IRA in the 1983 election while people were being killed.

Reply to  bonbon
December 15, 2019 10:10 pm

What army in Europe is even half decent?

With not even money for the relatively small NATO commitments in almost all NATO/EU members, where would the resources of a EU army come from?

Linda Goodman
December 15, 2019 9:57 am

ONLY Donald Trump stands in the way of an eco-totalitarian world government nightmare, for which the raging demons are chomping at the bit. So pray to the Great Spirit for his obvious re-election and all would-be saboteurs to fail grandly, as they did in 2016. ‘How’s that?’ you ask? Well I’ll tell you… internal polls showed Donald Trump ahead, of course, but many who were polled lied to avoid being tagged ‘racist’ so HRC’s peeps didn’t see the Trump landslide coming and stole only enough votes [primarily via ‘fraction magic’ ] to give the supremely unpopular red queen the Booby Prize. OOPS. A Karmic Backfire, Trumpian-style. Thank you, Great Spirit. Please may we have more?

Tom Foley
Reply to  Linda Goodman
December 15, 2019 2:03 pm

If it had been a straight contest at the last presidential election, first past the post, Clinton would have romped in, with 3 million votes MORE than Trump. That’s not a Trump landslide.

But the US electoral college system doesn’t work democratically ‘one man one vote’, it is set up on a state basis, so voters in lower population rural areas have a greater say. I’m not against this, without it the huge states, like California, would always dominate. But please don’t use this ‘undemocratic’ system as an excuse to bash Clinton and praise Trump about ‘landslides’.

What’s really going to be interesting in 2020 is how many people in poorer states stand by Trump even when they have lost income (as farmers) or jobs because of Trump’s trade sanctions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 8:03 pm

Farmers love Trump.

Trump paid them while China was targetting them during trade negotiations (using Chinese tariff payments), and now he has just signed a new deal with China where China will buy about $40 billion worth of American agricultural products. Trump said U.S. farmers are going to have to buy bigger tractors to meet the demand! Trump also made a deal with Japan that helped U.S. farmers and a deal with Canada that will help U.S. farmers.

Trump is doing so many good things and sadly, some people are just blind to it. They must be watching those biased, Leftwing news channels that never report the Truth about Trump. It’s just one distortion after another. The Truth is out there, though.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 17, 2019 12:19 am

It’s noticeable that China was allowed to target an important voting block and that the Dems are essentially cheering this transparent “election meddling”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Foley
December 15, 2019 8:56 pm

We have an economy with an unprecedented unemployment rate, and Blacks are doing much better under Trump than they did under Obama.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Foley
December 16, 2019 12:42 pm

Tom, the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. As such the name of the game was the electoral votes. Had the contest been decided by national vote instead, both candidates would have ran different campaigns, focusing on different strategies, people in the various states who didn’t bother to vote (because their state was so deeply red or deeply blue that it wasn’t worth their effort) may have chose to vote after all, third party candidates may have been considered more viable choices (depending on if you are advocating a first past the post or a preference national vote), etc. No one knows what the resultant vote totals would have been in that hypothetical different world.

And sorry but the winner wins by the rules of the game in play. You don’t play baseball and then after the game is over decide that instead of how many times players score a run. the game should be decided by how many strikeouts were made instead. And according to the rules in play at the time, Trump did have a landslide over Hillary where it counted – the electoral college. sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s simply the way it is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 18, 2019 5:46 am

“people in the various states who didn’t bother to vote (because their state was so deeply red or deeply blue that it wasn’t worth their effort) may have chose to vote after all”

My guess is there are a lot of voters out there in this position. Take for example my state of Oklahoma. Republicans win all the races most of the time and Trump was guaranteed to win here, so there are a lot of voters who stayed home because they knew their choice of candidate was going to win even if they didn’t go vote.

Fastforward to a dishonest impeachment. Those people who did not vote before will vote this time to make a statement against the unjustified impeachment.

A Democrat managed to win a seat in Oklahoma City in 2018, when noone was paying attention. She says she is going to vote to impeach Trump. She won’t be in that office come Jan. 2012. Even though she is not in my area, I intend to donate to her 2020 Repubiican opponent. I imagine I won’t be alone.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 18, 2019 5:55 am

That should be ” Jan. 2021″.

Trump said he was going to personally campaign against these Democrat House members.

I wonder what kind of nickname he is going to give to this Oklahoma Democrat? It probably won’t be flattering, and shouldn’t be because she, along with all the other Democrats in the House of Representatives are abusing their political power by carrying out a partisan impeachment based on nothing. I guess that’s too long for a nickname, but ole Trump will give her a good, descriptive one when the time comes.

December 15, 2019 10:14 am

audiatur et altera pars – let both sides be fully and fairly heard.

Great Latin phrase – could be a slogan of climate skepticism.

Pop Piasa
December 15, 2019 11:10 am

I wonder if Boris’ “first squeeze” is named Natasha… 😨

Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 15, 2019 1:50 pm

Apparently not, but The Sun, Tory newspaper is cheerfully reporting:
“The Prime Minister was joined by girlfriend Carrie Symonds and an eye-watering list of A-listers at a Christmas party hosted by Russian tycoon Evgeny Lebedev on Friday night.”
Don’t get me wrong, I voted for Boris twice before, but this time I left the UK for few days so to avoid voting for any of the contenders.

Reply to  Vuk
December 15, 2019 2:17 pm

Evgeny Lebedev “Born in Moscow, Lebedev is the son of Alexander Lebedev, a part owner of the Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta and former spy for the KGB and later its successor the FSB, and his first wife Natalia Sokolova. He moved to London at the age of eight, when his father began working for the KGB. His father was in the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, where he worked until 1992. In London, he had the diplomatic cover of an economic attaché.[2]”

John Endicott
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 16, 2019 12:28 pm

I wonder if Boris’ “first squeeze” is named Natasha…

And do they have an obsession with “Moose and squirrel”?

December 15, 2019 11:54 am

I don’t know what the reliability of the grid in the UK is but in terms of refocusing the climate debate I hope that electricity prices continue to skyrocket and blackouts occur frequently. Only by lived experience will the majority of constituents demand action from their MPs to slow or reverse the climate craziness that continues to litter the UK countryside. The trend appears that farms no longer grow crops or sheep, or cows they just grow wind.
As for the indoctrination of our young it will be difficult to deradicalise those whose education has force fed them the global warming diet. I think our best hope is that a decisive victory for Donald Trump in the US will embolden him to engage in a full on major attack on the climate craziness that currently is destroying Europe, Canada and Australia . Other like minded politicians will realise that behind all the climate change noise drowning out the voice of reason there is an undercurrent of sceptics way bigger than anyone can imagine who are waiting to surface if ever it becomes fashionable or safe to do so. There are huge numbers of people who could be persuaded to the sceptical side of the argument but are so ostracised and vilified if they do that they just go with the flow and without a lot of conviction sprout climate change rhetoric. The young whilst they are almost immovable in their beliefs ,fears will shift rapidly if they feel they realise they have been deceived. The sceptics need to get some major scalps through whistleblowers and high profile court cases that can break through the corrupted media stone wall that acts as an almost impenetrable protection racket for the alarmist cause. The CO2 endangerment finding needs to be reversed, the Bureau of Meteorology needs to be independently audited, another climate gate needs to happen which doesn’t get corruptly whitewashed by a corrupt judiciary, deep throat media whistleblowers need to shine a light on the inherent biases that infect the national broadcasters of UK , Australia and Canada.
There needs to be some major moment that can shift the debate dramatically and with the benefit of social media a global reprogramming can occur quite quickly. It may only be wishful thinking but I’m optimistic that something will occur so monumental that we can hopefully over the next 3-4 years put the climate nonsense behind us and have a world that seeks to solve real problems that people care about like poverty, health , education and who’s going to win the next World Cup.

December 15, 2019 12:18 pm

No ‘Natasha’ among short listed contenders : Allegra , Petronella, Anna, Marina, Helen, (Jennifer), Carrie … etc …. time will tell, he is only 55.

Gunga Din
December 15, 2019 1:25 pm

When I did a search I couldn’t find it.
I suspect that our lord “wordsmith” was combining Fascist and Communist?
Because, left or right or in between, there really is no practical difference?
No freedom to speak or act unless approved?

Greg Cavanagh
December 15, 2019 1:32 pm

This is simply the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Nobody is scared of the wolf anymore. The boy, and the media, are ignored and ridiculed.

Pity they didn’t understand the meaning held within the story at all.

Gunga Din
December 15, 2019 1:41 pm

Finally, Boris Johnson, now that he has been subjected to the most prejudiced media campaign I’ve ever seen and has nevertheless triumphed, may well think of bringing in a Freedom of Speech Bill to guarantee that all sides are fairly heard, particularly in the schools and universities..

Sounds like the UK has its own “deplorable” voters. 😎

December 15, 2019 1:53 pm

This article is very uninformed. It was cost that drove heavy industry away. A simple reading of history proves this. With raw material mines, costs are higher. So the sentances below are utter make believe. And I can be pretty sure the author has not got much clue on those industries because of what is written.

“The net effect of Europe’s insane climate policies is thus to increase global emissions, not to reduce them. But then, the aim was never to reduce emissions: it was to reduce the Western economies to ruin.”

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dan
December 16, 2019 3:10 pm

Huh? Green policies have driven up cost. “Green” policies include more than just reducing CO2 but also stuff like, using CA as an example, forbidding clearing dead brush because a critter that hasn’t been seen in 50 years used to live in dead brush (Hence increased wild fires in CA.).
I don’t know the UK equivalent of such nonsense regulations that limit development and/or increase the cost.
And then there’s the cost of labor. Here in the US they want to increase the minimum wage nationally.
I’m skilled labor. I’ve never gotten an automatic raise every time the minimum wage has been increased.
What I do has been devalued each and every time.
So, what you quoted is true. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Dan
December 16, 2019 6:46 pm

“It was cost that drove heavy industry away. ”

And part of the reason was higher electricity costs, and continuing projected increases, the resullt of climate change legislation.

December 15, 2019 3:31 pm

Regarding how ones political beliefs change over time the following of my life may be of interest.

Born 13.3.1027, so now almost 93, the first years of my life were away from the UK. My Father was regular army so in 1932 aged just 5 years I was in India, later by 1937 I was in Egypt.

So I am my s sister and brothers missed out of the misery and hard times of the depression of the 1930 tees.

We returned to the UK in 1938, Dad still in the Army, so we were still on the countries payroll.

Now compared to today”s youth we had very little, , but life in the countryside, the city of Salisbury in Wiltshire was pleasant. No risk from sex mad males back then, they must have all been n jail, so we kids went wherever we wanted. We did what today would be considered to be dangerous things like climbing trees, taking birds eggs, only one per nest. , and climbing cliffs, no
one died as a result.

In common with most kids of my age we wanted things, in my case it was a second hand telescope. some 3 shillings and six pence.

So I became a paperboy, back then one had to get off the bicycle and fold the paper and insert it into the letter box. I also delivered foodstuffs on a Saturday morning, a bicycle with a large basket on the front. As Salisbury is very hilly it was hard work. It took about a month or more to make the needed money, but my joy at having earned it myself was far more than much bigger purchases in the future. It was a strong lesson of the benefit of the Free Enterprise system.

But during the war when the Russians joined in, we were told what a good guy Uncle Joe really was , Hollywood even made a film about how good Russia was, “”Mission to Moscow”” so politically I was a bit left wing.

Now following the end of the war, the UK had a election and Labor won, now it was the
worst possible time for any political party, so Labor with some very good ideas simply ran out of money.

By 1949 my younger brother had migrated to Australia and I followed one year later, becoming a Boundry rider, “”Cowboy”” on a sheep station.

Politics in Australia had gone Conservative and slowly so did I. While I did vote Labor Hawke and Keating, they were really Conservative by todays standard standard and did a good job, but since then its been Conservative all the way. Even with the very lefty wing Turnbull, now replaced by Morrison.

I hope that is of some interest


Then came WW2, now I was

Gunga Din
Reply to  Michael
December 16, 2019 3:27 pm

I found it of interest.
My step-granddad emigrated from Germany between the wars.
I remember him telling me how the price of a glass of increased from 4,000 marks to 8,000 marks overnight. (maybe it was 2,000 to 4,000?)
That was the environment he (legally) emigrated from. Also the environment that gave rise to the start of an infamous totalitarian.

Kyle in Upstate NY
December 15, 2019 3:34 pm

I still can’t believe that the folks in the UK have to pay a damned TAX to finance the BBC. Such a thing just sounds so utterly alien here in America. Yeah, I could imagine people’s reaction to the government saying, “You will pay a tax to subsidize a government-run national TV station.” It almost sounds comical, except it isn’t. I could perhaps understand if the BBC was paid for out of general tax revenues, but a BBC-specific tax, jeez.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
December 15, 2019 4:10 pm

Courts in the UK are clogged with 10’s of thousands of people being convicted for non-payment of the TV Tax. Some even go to prison. The BBC does not conduct collection of the tax anymore, it employs thugs that think, because they have a bit of paper in their hands, they have a statutory right of entry in to your home. They don’t. It’s why the police are usually called in to assist however, the police are only there if there is a criminal incident, not a civil one.

Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
December 15, 2019 11:11 pm


The BBC is an independent organisation. If it were funded by the state it would become a state broadcaster.


shortus cynicus
Reply to  tonyb
December 16, 2019 12:59 am

They are founded by government because people calling themselves to be government are providing guns and jails needed to proceed with the scam.

Reply to  shortus cynicus
December 16, 2019 1:49 am

It is a criminal offence so, just as with any theft would be dealt with by the state funded police and if necessary go through the courts. If someone stole from Sainsburys or other large supermarket would they be considered a part of govt if the police arrested the thief?


Boris has said he intends to decriminalise paying the fee which sounds sensible.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  tonyb
December 16, 2019 2:34 am

People, in the UK, were, effectively, forced to give away their rights to defend themselves from the state in the 80’s (IIRC?). Since then knife crime has gone up, esp in London (Who knew?). In Australia that happened in the early 1990’s, lauded as “great policy”. Since then, individual gun crime (Not mas shootings) has gone up.

John Endicott
Reply to  tonyb
December 16, 2019 12:21 pm

Apples and oranges tonyb, the government doesn’t have, by force of law, a “retailers license fee” the purpose of which is to funds Sainsburys. It does, however have by force of law a tv license fee the purpose of which is to fund the BBC. so yes “funded by the government” is an apt description of the BBC, like it or not.

John Endicott
Reply to  tonyb
December 18, 2019 5:31 am

Patrick MJD, when you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns.

John Tillman
December 15, 2019 4:09 pm

This is discouraging:


Trump should send a delegation of the most qualified American CACA skeptics to have a talk with his new BFF.

Maybe Piers Corbyn could join them.

Surfer Dave
December 15, 2019 5:19 pm

Strange. It seemed to me that the BBC, the Guardian, etc, pilloried and slandered Corbyn non-stop, the slimey anti-semite slur was never left alone. I saw somewhere that on basic simple raw majority of voters, the Tories were millions of vote shy of an absolute majority, the ancient gerrymandered electoral boundaries still working in Tory favour. The most amazing thing is the end of the Union as we knew it, North Ireland did not vote Tory, nor did Scotland, and both seem to be on the verge of leaving the failed Union. Scots feel they are more European than British.
Of course, what the election showed is, it is far easier to use fear (of EU bureaucrats, of foreigners) than to use hope to influence people.

Reply to  Surfer Dave
December 15, 2019 9:41 pm

There is a push for Frexit, Grexit… The anti UE (not anti-Europe) movement (which is also an anti-xenophobia movement(1)) is strong in many member states.

(1) Advocates of independent nation-states want peace and harmony with their neighbors and Nigel Farage was even somehow criticized by Europhile and accused of hypocrisy for NOT being a xenophobe.

The europhiles have been insisting on the risks of X-exit for any X, as demonstrated by the hard issues of Brexit.

Now they point to the danger looming on the integrity of that monarchic union. It’s a terribly bad argument:

– people in mainland Europe don’t care much about the long term integrity of the union of either “Europe” or the UK;
– the integrity of the EU member states that leave, and the risk that their member nations might split doesn’t apply to many other member states, which have regions with a culture and some form of “nationalist” identity but which don’t exist legally as nations and are not trying to leave;
– nationalist movements sometimes don’t exist in a single member state (f.ex. the Basque nationalism) so a split of the UE could not make their demand for a nation state more likely to be met (on the contrary).

The anti-Brexit people in the UK might insist on existential danger for the integrity of the UK, but from the POV of the rest of Europe, that’s a terribly weak argument.

Also, many people in Europe feel that Ireland needs to be, deserves to be, or will be reunited one day. So the argument goes against the status quo and against opposing Brexit.

Not only that, but Brexit was described as a future economic catastrophe, because the EU is an economic powerhouse (lol) not because of North Ireland issues. Saying that Brexit is bad because of Ireland specific issues is a way to admit that X-exit isn’t inherently that bad.

Reply to  niceguy
December 15, 2019 11:08 pm


‘Also, many people in Europe feel that Ireland needs to be, deserves to be, or will be reunited one day.’

Reunited? When has Ireland ever been a single united country in the sense of a sovereign independent state. Right from the Normans it has always been a fractured state.

Reply to  tonyb
December 16, 2019 10:32 am

It’s matter of feeling and public relations, not facts.

The feeling I see from most people here is “Ireland” belongs together. So Brexit is viewed even more positively!

The anti Brexit propaganda is in a pretty bad state. I saw a “debate” on Brexit on French TV channel “France 5”, they even had someone that wasn’t anti-Brexit in the panel – after tens of “debates” between anti Brexit people, haters of Brexit, enthusiast europhiles and pro-EU people.

In the debate after the Tories landslide, the europhile journalist clearly was about to cry for the whole debate. I was unsettling.

I have seen parents on TV, of a dead child (murdered by serial rapists or other horrible tragedies) with more composure.

Reply to  Surfer Dave
December 15, 2019 11:05 pm


The boundaries actually favour the labour party. If the sizes of seats were more equal the Tories would have got another dozen seats. It was intended to change this in line with the suggestions of the Electoral commission but this was shelved when the liberals threw their toys out of the pram when the referendum on P.R. went against them.

Scotland is wildly over represented by MP’s. Proportionally they should have 10 fewer.

BTW can you tell me when any Euro Mp was ever voted in with over 50% of the vote?


Patrick MJD
December 15, 2019 5:36 pm

Riots on the streets of London, clear sign the left do not like democracy.

December 15, 2019 9:50 pm

The vote in Scotland does not mean a thing. Scotland is really legally now a State, with London , i.e. Westminister , being the boss.

Look at history, Scotland was always leaning towards Europe, or rather France. They had assistance from the French during the numerous wars with England, and Mary Queen of Scots was before that a Queen of France.

I would not consider the voting system to e be a Gerrymander, although its not truly a democrancy. The first past the pose system as against the Australian system of proporatatioat represeentative is is the same as the USA, the cities are more left wing, the countryside more to the right.

The cities seem to thin that all meat comes from a supermarket, the country folk live in the real world, but that is not a Gerrymander.


Patrick MJD
December 16, 2019 1:00 am

Channel 4 in the UK are asking what went wrong for Jeremy “I loved the IRA in 1983” Corbyn? The left are just melting…

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 16, 2019 1:37 am

Boris’ landslide was a great result. But not so much as a surprise to those who by now know that the ‘polls’ are increasingly getting it totally wrong. However, if you look at the percentages of the vote for the various parties it is clear that the election was not so much won by the Tories, who increased their share by 1%, but rather lost by Labour who lost almost 10% of the voters. It was Corbyn who won the election …. for the Tories.

December 16, 2019 5:44 am

Re. the previous one by Ed. The UK election was in my opinion the second referendum about the EU, should they stay or leave.

Now Boris who despite his background I do not consider him to be a Tory in the older meaning of the word.

If the new government does a reasonable job of looking after the previous Labor voters, they may well have more than the one 5 year term.

But he in common with other leaders will have to kill the myth of CC. The UK will not be able
to afford this cost as leaving the EU may well result in at least the short term a lower standard
of living.


George Lawson
December 16, 2019 7:07 am

“Johnson, unlike Trump, slobberingly endorses. Johnson’s current partner – the First Squeeze, as the tabloid newspapers call her – is a climate fanatic, and his father Stan has joined the violent urban terrorist mob Extinction Rebellion.”

.What hope have we that the PM will join the realists on the subject of global warming when he sleeps with a fanatical supporter of the lies, and that unbelievably his father shows every opposition to democracy in this country by joining the disgraceful organisation Extinction Rebellion. Johnson senior must be going round the bend following his decision to participate in that ludicrous TV programme The Jungle where, amongst other things he is happy to join a group of drop outs and eat worms and other revolting insects in order to make a living when he is clearly incapable of doing so in the manner most of us do. I suppose he will now join the mob that will close the bridges in London and stop ambulances getting through to hospitals. Is it too much to ask that the media now cast him into obscurity after he was featured too much in the media before the election. He should take a leaf out of Dennis Thatcher’s book and keep his mouth shut at all times and his face hidden so as not to embarrass his son.

December 16, 2019 3:51 pm

“In the short term, the Conservative victory will make little difference to the monumentally stupid and egregiously expensive climate policies on which all parties are fatuously agreed. Even the Brexit Party, to its eternal shame, abandoned the working class and issued a briefing ordering its supporters to toe the line on the climate question. It did not win a single seat.”

A quick reading of the Brexit Party Contract does not quite look like that.

I watched every Brexit Party campaign speech in the north of England I could find, and Nigel Farage clearly said that “it would be hard to reach these carbon reduction targets without de-industrializing the country.” He actually launched the Brexit Party in a manufacturing plant. His offer to the environmental/youth vote as well as the Labour vote was global initiatives to “plant trees” rather than closing industry.

Boris Johnson visited the same manufacturing plants in the North as the Brexit Party, and adopted exactly the same language regarding planting trees.

At least Nigel Farage and Christopher Monckton use the D word, “de-industrialization”, which I wish we would all agree is the real point of all of this.

Steve Z
December 16, 2019 4:57 pm

Boris Johnson ran his campaign on “getting Brexit done”, and with an absolute Tory majority in Parliament, he has the opportunity to do it, within the next six weeks.

The whole idea behind Brexit was to reclaim British sovereignty over their own laws, rather than having to bend to the unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission, which has much more power in the EU than the European parliament.

After Brexit is done, what will Boris Johnson and his Tories do with the rest of their five years in power? The European Union may want to punish the UK on trade, but there’s a huge trading partner and ally across the Atlantic with a booming economy, and Johnson may want to use the rest of his first year as PM negotiating a
trade deal with the USA, unshackled by EU regulations, which President Trump would welcome, and Trump might be able to convince Johnson of the folly of decarbonization, since the UK does get significant revenue from North Sea oil.

Interestingly enough, the other major country whose leadership is against decarbonization is Australia, another former colony of the UK, and the UK after Brexit may want to expand trade with Australia, which could also help against Chinese expansionism.

Then there is India, with a growing economy, which is not worried about “global warming”, preferring to bring its huge population into the 21st century by improving technology, which also requires increased energy use. Also a former British colony.

It is very possible that the old British empire–the UK, the USA, Australia, India, and possibly Canada–could unite to form a new axis of increased energy development, resisting the suicidal tendencies of most of Europe (except France) to convert to “renewables” in the fight against the phantom foe of “global warming”.

The election of Boris Johnson and Brexit might be just the beginning.

Roger Knights
December 16, 2019 6:59 pm

“It is very possible that the old British empire–the UK, the USA, Australia, India, and possibly Canada–could unite to form a new axis of increased energy development, resisting the suicidal tendencies of most of Europe (except France) to convert to “renewables” in the fight against the phantom foe of “global warming”.”

There used to be a group called the English-Speaking Union, or something like that. What’s happened to it, does anyone know?

B d Clark
Reply to  Roger Knights
December 16, 2019 7:10 pm

They all went Dutch.

December 18, 2019 12:39 am

Sorry Christopher, but you’ve got this one wrong. When you state facts, use mathematics and physics, then I agree with your cogently put, rational arguments. However, what you have written here is merely opinion, and wrong. If you honestly believe that anything involving this second coiffured buffoon that now holds high office is a Good Thing, then I despair. In fact, I despair of much of the horrendously right-wing rhetoric that has taken over what was previously a civilised and intelligent forum for debate and reduced it to the level of those we oppose. It’s depressingly predictable, I suppose.
The Conservative victory was not, by any means, a landslide. That they gained so many seats is mainly to the failure of Labour and the rabid Leavers who would vote for Pol Pot if they thought it would give them “their Brexit”. That you applaud the Tories and paint all that oppose or disagree with them as Communists or your new favourite oxymoron ‘Fasmunist’ demonstrates that you either do not know how or why the Tory party operates in the way it does, the fundamental beliefs that drive them to do what they do, and how they perceive and treat those who are not “one of us”, i.e. dyed-in-the-wool, blue blood, entitled, righteous Tories who think that they, and only they, can govern as if by the Divine Right of Kings. I am not one of you, or one of them, I’m just an ordinary bloke from Birmingham who put up with being shafted by them for too long.
I don’t know how much time you’ve spent with the working classes – precious little if the evidence is anything to go by – but the one thing that the majority of them are not overly burdened with is ‘common sense’ – whatever that may be. Common ignorance, pig-headedness, stubbornness, resistance to change, small mindedness, bigotry and racism, egocentrism, yes – and I should know, those are the people that I come from and got away from. That’s who the Tories rely on to get into power. Short memories, shorter attention spans.

As for Communists, it seems you have no idea what a Communist actually is. I live in an East European ex-Communist country. They know all about what real Communism actually is and how it worked, and what it was like to live under it. The thing you describe as Communism is as far from that as it is possible to be. Yes, it makes catchy headlines, and nice logos with the hammer and sickle on the BBC logo, the EU flag, all red and green, but that’s just plain silly and beneath you. Not being rabidly right-wing does not make you a Communist. Being of the opinion that the state has some role to play in the care of it’s citizens, provision of services and regulation of businesses does not make you a Communist. Again, you’re wrong on this and it’s beneath you.
So it’s hardly surprising to find that with this sort of argument behind it, the sceptical perspective gets dismissed as ignorant right wing, pro-Trump ranting with nothing behind it. There used to be a time when we could argue against AGW with facts and logic. Instead we have this, and it’s a shame that you are a part of it. But, I suppose you’re entitled to to your opinion, even though it’s wrong.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Adrian Mann
December 18, 2019 10:12 pm

I think this post says everything about why Labour lost- and as a working class thicko it’s good to know that my betters will always be there to tell me what I should do, say and think.

Reply to  Andy Mansell
December 19, 2019 4:32 pm

Oh Andy, I’m a working class thicko too, as are all my family and everyone I grew up with. Thick as pigshit, the lot of ’em, and proud of it. None of that fancy book-learning in this house! And that’s why the Tories win, because they can convince enough of them that they are on their side, will lift them out of misery and drudgery by allowing them to buy their council houses with money they don’t have, systematically dismantling the NHS and their communities, and more promises of jam… tomorrow. Thatcher understood it. Cameron understood it. Boris understands it. Sorry you didn’t get the point, but perhaps the fact that you didn’t is actually the point. How depressingly predictable.

Andy Mansell
December 19, 2019 9:39 pm

You’re seriously comparing the great Mrs T with the chinless wonder Cameron?