Caroline Lucas’ narrow victory over Labour in Brighton Pavilion will no doubt be lauded by the BBC far beyond it’s significance. With a majority of 1252 (2.4%) on an 8.4% swing from Labour this is fragile enough, but having sat up watching results come in last night, the impression that I got is that elsewhere their candidates rarely if ever managed to save their deposits (see comment #1 below). According to various reports, the Brighton result owes much to the Greens putting the same amount of effort into taking this single seat as might have gone into a national campaign. With 200 activists phoning possible supporters as many as three times yesterday to offer them a lift to their polling station – by rickshaw or on someones back presumably – they certainly weren’t taking any chances.
It will be interesting to see how the Greens’ share of the popular vote stacks up against the BNP and UKIP when these figures are available. Caroline Lucas is a very experienced and competent politician who had the good sense to fight her campaign on local issues rather than traditional green ones. Perhaps the best analogy to draw is with George Galloway’s far left Respect Party’s successes in Bethnal Green and Bow in recent elections, although at the time of writing it seems likely that they will now lose this seat.
I watched BBC coverage of the election until after five o’clock this morning, without much relish, then took a glass of whiskey outside to look at the dawn, listen to the birds, and enjoy the heavy scent of bluebells wafting from the wood. I enjoy election nights. Usually there is real life drama and you can feel the political pulse or the nation beating in a way that is impossible at any other time. Some candidates are jubilant and clamouring to get at the future, while others know that, for them, it is all over, and try to smile through their tears. It is about the only time that politicians seem human.
But last night, for hour after hour there seemed to be only confusion and disappointment wherever one looked. Not one party was prepared to show any sign of real jubilation, right down to Plaid Cymru, who were ‘disappointed’, and Alex Salmon of the SNP saying, with a broad grin, that they had done very well really, except that they hadn’t got anywhere near their target number of seats. But Alex is like that.
How can you have an election where everyone is a loser? Well the analysts will probably be explaining that for months to come.
All this was played out against a background of occasional references to a dramatic escalation in the sovereign debt crisis on world financial markets, which I have not been able to catch up with yet. Surely this is no time for there to be doubt about who is running Britain.
Supposing that, over the next few days, the Conservatives manage to form a government, it is worth looking at what they have to say about Climate Change and Energy on their website. Even a cursory glance at this reveals that compliance with the requirements of EU carbon reduction policy is the main driving force. There are several things that this brings to mind.
Firstly, the Conservatives are divided on Europe. Secondly, even David Shukman was prepared to admit in a BBC report the other evening that a lot of conservative MPs are sceptical about climate change. Thirdly, any incoming government that is doing the job properly will have to take a very careful, cool and objective look at energy policy, because at the moment we don’t really have one that is credible. Bits of paper bearing fantasy figures for the contribution that immensely expensive wind power can make to keeping the lights on until 2020 just will no longer do at a time when the economy is in ruins and the coffers are empty. Lastly, if David Cameron manages to form a government, its hold on power is likely to be very tenuous indeed until there is another election.
Welcome to the brave new post-Blair’n’Brown world!
Peter
Progressive alliance getting even more shakey perhaps.
One of the troubles with UK politics these days is the “media elites” seem to have a total disconnect from the public (and reality) as demostrated by the Lib result.
Peter
Peter, you have no idea what my personal politics are (you obviously forgot my answers to this on the previous NS thread). I know you like to consider all AGW sceptics to be right wing capitalist greed merchants only out to feather their own nests at any cost, as that seems to fit with your world view.
If you want to know about UK politics read around the topic from various sources, the blogs are probably the best place to get decent info in the UK right now. The Statesman is utterly in bed with Lab, which is probably colouring your view of the UK. As with any topic, you really have to read around it from every side to get a decent idea of whats going on.
The reasons why the “rainbow coalition” idea sounds dodgy to many people are several, and heaven knows I’m far from being an expert on the subject (or on most subjects!), but here goes (apologies for straying into OT territory a bit but I’ll try and mention AGW at least once):
1) The perception that if the Conservatives got more seats than any other single party but are kept out of government, there is something horribly wrong. It’s like someone finishing first in a race but the prize being shared between those who came second, third and fourth. Not an exact analogy, of course, but you see where I’m going with this.
2) The perception that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists (if involved) will exert an undue amount of influence for their own ends, in effect holding the alliance to ransom in order to grab major concessions, at the expense of everyone else. Not saying that would happen, of course, but I’ve heard it mentioned. It’s possible to argue that the LibDems are actually doing something like this now, making PR a major issue, when it was not an issue for the majority during the election campaign. Labour’s John Reid made this point earlier today.
3) British politicians are not used to this way of working, with the exception of those in Northern Ireland, I suppose. Germany and other countries who have had various flavours of PR for decades have had plenty of experience at making it work. Add to that the deficit hanging over everyone’s heads like the sword of Damocles and the fact that whichever combination of parties gains power is going to take highly drastic and unpopular measures. Not easy.
4) Tribalism, partially explained by the fact that we’ve done things so long in this adversarial way. I’ve never understood the visceral hatred some on each side have had for the opposition, as it’s plainly obvious that there are decent people on most points of the political spectrum, who have valid reasons for their beliefs and convictions. Not every Tory is a bloodsucking evil plutocrat, not every Labourite is a rabid Stalinist, not every Green is a civilisation-hating Luddite. (Just as not every AGW-sceptic is a “right-winger”, Peter Martin, as I think you well know!) This goes beyond politics and into psychology (e.g. Freud and projection, Jung and the shadow side), so I’ll leave it at that.
Whichever coalition actually happens, we’ll be entering an unusual, stressful and unpredictable era with an experimental form of government at the helm. Interesting times!
We have spoken often about the disconnect between some of our Politicians and the electorate they are supposed to represent with regards to climate change and energy provision. This disconnect spreads into a multitude of other area’s and is the main reason for the rise of the BNP and the support shown to UKIP. My new MP in the hour I had with him refused to acknowledge that many of those who vote UKIP are in fact long term Tories who are ill at ease with Cameron’s view on Europe and Climate Change.
Whilst I was disappointed personally that we have a hung parliament I began to think we may have ended up with a best case scenario to fix the issue of our financial crisis. It all was to hinge on the 2 parties (Tory and LibDem’s) acting in the best interests of the country. If as is apparent to me at this moment the Lib Dem activists are going for electoral reform at all costs they will be dealt with severely by the electorate. They have no mandate to enforce this change.
Labour has shown yet again it has nothing to offer other than power and control at all costs. They are still after having suffered the worst defeat since 1931 trying spin that they know what the country wants.
Another thing I must stress is the proportional representation would not necessarily translate into the popular vote figures we see. I don’t see how the Scottish Nationalists can carry the same weight of vote nationally when they only contest Scottish seats. I don’t think many people in England are going to be happy taking big cuts whilst the Scots have free prescriptions, free University etc etc. Come the revolution I think the smaller partners may just find they are worse off.
Alex Cull
Good summary!
You wrote:
Unpredictable? Maybe.
Worse than what you just had (which was, unfortunately, very ‘predictable’)? Probably not, as long as the winner party is involved one way or another.
Max
Barelysane,
“AGW sceptics to be right wing capitalist greed merchants” ?? No that’s being too simplistic.
What I am saying is that there those who have an ideological commitment to the idea that, even democratic, governments are essentially the enemy of the people, and therefore their powers need to be rolled back, do have a particular problem when it comes to AGW.
It doesn’t fit. If mainstream science is correct then there will need to be more government intervention to tackle the issue rather than less. There will need to be greater international co-operation, via organisations like the UN, not less. So let’s just pretend that those climate scientists are part of a large conspiracy! Problem solved.
Incidentally, did any of you British guys vote for either the Lib Dems or the Labour party? If there is no right-wing link to climate scepticism then, statistically, about half of you would have done just that!
Peter
This idea of aggregating votes in order to form a ‘progressive coalition’ does not bear scrutiny.
Let us repeat this poll.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/lib-con-coalition-would-be-an-electoral-gift-to-labour/
Most lib dem voters do NOT describe themselves as left wing. Those that do will, on the whole, be from a relatively small group of activists-the general population is pretty centrist.
To aggregate votes for a ‘progressive alliance’ on the basis that all who voted for the Lib dems would have voted for Labour or vice versa is risible and would suggest there was no need for two separate parties.
As for the financial situation, we need to look at two separate but connected elements.
The first- the task of ‘cutting the deficit’ has been camouflaged as to its proper meaning. It is only a way of saying that for years UK Plc has been spending £1.36 for every £1 we earn. The difference is met by borrowing and to bring the deficit down we need to cut £50 billion a year (the Micawber principle)
This does nothing of course to address the debt(of which the deficit is merely the current account) brought about by the reckless Govt spending which also encouraged personal debt as people believed they were wealthier than they were and subsequently borrowed to finance their aspirations.
This debt is estimated to reach some £1 trillion soon and does not take into account various horrors hidden under stones, such as the private finance initiative (which kept spending off the balance sheet) and pensions (ditto) to cover all sorts of burueacrats and their generous pensions as the govt greatly expanded the unproductive part of our economy.
Some of this debt is of course ‘old’ and every govt borrows money, but this one has taken the art to new levels.
The formula for recovery is either very drastic cuts or very substantial cuts plus a substantial increase in taxes. Taxation has increased enormously over the last decade as have prices, and the ability of most people to pay additional taxes is limited.
Labour has done some good things, but they have a historic habit of throwing money at a problem and never seem to realise that their grand plans have to be paid for at some point. In consequence-as with any family living beyond its means-they act like the three monkeys in the hope that the chickens will not come home to roost.
That sound you hear is a great flock of chickens doing just that.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Sounds like you voted Tory? OK that’s fair enough. But, its just a coincidence that those who think like you tend to be Climate sceptics,
and climate sceptics tend to be those who think like you?
Peter
I’m trying to tell you that that there is no such as a ‘progressive alliance’ that allows you to borrow votes from another party in order to justify a stitch up, so don’t try and discern any voting clues from my comments.
It is natural justice that the party that clearly won by our rules should govern-that it should be with another party would be no bad thing as that would represent a good range of views.
This current govt has been financially profligate to the nth degree and in addition have mounted a concerted assault on our civil liberties, and for those reasons alone deserve to be kicked out. In due course they might be a party worthy of Govt again-as they were in 1997-they currently need a long break.
Do you endorse financial profligacy and a party who believes that Orwells 1984 is a handbook they should govern by? Do all warmists think like that?
Tonyb
Peter
Surprising as it may be to you AGW was pretty much a non-issue in our election, we’ve far more pressing concerns here atm, the wrecked economy for a start with the nasty possibility of a double dip recession on the horizon. I was talking about your world view not mine.
For info i did actually vote tory despite despising the party and most of what they stand for. The reason is simple where i live only two prospective MPs had a chance, lab and tory, and i utterly loathe Labour for what they’ve done to my country. Straightforward tactical vote, this was despite having been in contact with my previous MP on a number of occasions (Labour) who i found to be helpful and concerned about local issues, but he retired and regardless you ultimately vote for a government not a MP.
Peter Martin, re your #56, in the national election I voted UKIP, as they are now for me the least worst UK party re my pet subjects of AGW and the EU. In the local elections (a different kettle of fish entirely) I voted Labour. Both lost, by the way! I have been a Labour voter for most of my life but have become disillusioned during the Blair/Brown years. If Labour developed some fiscal good sense (stop laughing, everyone!), promised to hold a referendum on EU membership (and held to their promise) and adopted a more sceptical, pragmatic position on AGW (perhaps they’d need to clone Graham Stringer) I would consider voting for them again in national elections. Right now, though, I’m not holding my breath, obviously.
By the way, now looks like the Con/LibDem deal is on. Again.
Alex
Don’t think i’ll every stop laughing (or do i mean crying ;)
Peter
I did – as usual. Not that it has any bearing on my views on AGW, which are that if it was sound, it wouldn’t be necessary to massage the figures, pretend that the previous warm periods didn’t happen, and ignore data that didn’t fit the foregone conclusion.
Hey Pete,
Did you know that the word “Left” in Latin is “Sinestra”?
Appropriately, “Sinestra” is the root word of “Sinister”……
Isn’t that interesting?
With due respect to everyone here, I don’t think we’ve begun to understand the significance of the Lucas victory. The Greens look set to establish themselves as the main party of the far left, thus eclipsing all the various Marxists grouplets. And on questions of fairness and social justice, they have earned the admiration of many old Labour types like me and (I suspect) Alex. It would be a mistake to dismiss Lucas’s success as a movement limited to middle-class Guardian-reading luvvies. Any political movement will have its first successes in the politically engaged section of the electorate, and that is not currently the exploited working class.
Here’s the beginning of the policy bit of her acceptance speech:
“Thanks to the confidence that the voters of Brighton Pavilion have shown, Green principles and policies will now have a voice in Parliament.
“Policies such as responding to climate change with a million new ‘green’ jobs in low-carbon industries, fair pensions and care for older people, and stronger regulation of the banks will be heard in the House of Commons”.
Note how the three policies she mentions are shared by all three major parties, and how it’s climate change which she mentions first.
Brute:
Your sniping at us European lefties misses the point. There are cultural and historical differences between our continents which lead to a lot of mutual ignorance and misunderstanding. Unlike most British lefties, I don’t hate Sarah Palin, or Republicanism in general. It’s not my thing because it’s not my political system.
Geoff,
Not denigrating Leftists…………just pointing out some inconvenient truths……I apologize.
Stunning Pictures of Al Gore’s New $9 Million Mansion
http://todaysworldnewsinfo.blogspot.com/2010/05/stunning-pictures-of-al-gore-new-9.html
Geoff
Personally i’d be very very surprised if the greens are able to progress beyond Brighton. Simply because of the very atypical demographic of the area. I believe it’s a very affluent and very liberal area.
Really must visit sometime ;)
Geoff (64)
Maybe I’m clutching at straws, but I would hope that the new exposure of green policies (some of which are sensible enough) might cause them to re-evaluate matters like AGW. They won’t want their raison d’être derailed by inconvenient failures of supporting evidence, and it only needs a high-profile fall from grace (e.g. Mann, Hansen, Pachauri) for awkward questions to arise.
In this country, it just needs the BBC or the Guardian to start doing their job properly!
PeterM
You wrote (56):
Yes.
Let me turn your statement around for you:
Make sense?
Max
PeterM
Regarding my #69, the viewpoint I described (regarding individual freedom versus the power of the state) has also been described in specific detail by Josef Goebbels (and more vaguely by Lenin).
Max
As is typical and entirely predictable certain of the defeated labour party and Caroline Lucas continue to snipe about the new coalition Government before it has even had a chance to get through the first day. This is the same intolerant attitude that is always on display by the AGW fanatic’s. A belief that they have a monopoly on knowledge of what’s right whilst the rest of us know nothing.
Max,
I’m afraid that you have just proved Godwin’s Law! And not for the first time either!
This states that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress!
There is also some evidence to suggest that Richard Sexton may deserve some credit for helping Godwin to formulate his law, saying in 1989 “You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis.”
Peter Geany,
“This is the same intolerant attitude that is always on display by the AGW fanatic’s. A belief that they have a monopoly on knowledge of what’s right whilst the rest of us know nothing.”
Yes, of course, just like the Nazis!
PS We AGW ‘fanatics’ may not know everything but at least we do know that there shouldn’t be an apostrophe in the word :-)
PeterM
You mention “Godwin’s Law” in regard to the AGW debate.
The pro-AGW Grist site beat me to the draw with the quote I cited on the NS thread, by comparing “climate criminals” to the Nazis:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57043
And then, in a similar vein, Ellen Goodman already did the same a few years ago when she wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
Godwin’s Law is a bit contrived, in any case, Peter. He could just as well have used the example of the old Soviet Union and Lenin/Stalin, or any other repressive regime throughout history. These are also good examples of political systems and leaders who, like the Nazis, took away personal liberty and freedom from the individuals for the “good of the state”.
And, since this thread is about “politics” (and you brought up the issue of increased “power to the government”, rather than the individual, with relation to AGW), the analogy is directly pertinent.
Max
Brute #66
No apologies needed. Seeing “my” end of the political spectrum embrace a nonsensical pseudo-scientific ideology (yet again!) and seeing the most energetic opposition to this idiocy coming from “your” end of the spectrum naturally makes me reassess my political ideas. I can see admirable aspects to the American indifference to wealth disparity, for instance – the tradition of self-made millionares who make their fortunes on the back of the workers, then pay their debt to society (and gain respectability) by founding Universities and Museums. The problem with our rich is that many of them think their ancestors paid their debt to society back at the time of the Crusades.
The fact is, the political energy which fuels global warming hysteria comes from the far left. This has gained a foothold in the British Parliament by ousting the ruling “normal” left-wing party, whereas in France and I think in Germany, the Greens have only gained influence and Parliamentary seats by exploiting proportional representation. The last time we had a far left MP was back in the fifties I believe (a solitary Communist in Glasgow).