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!
Well ! Looks like some good news finally…………
Shell Arctic Drilling Plan Gets Court Approval
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/shell-arctic-drilling-pla_n_575559.html
Brute,
Most Americans haven’t got the first notion of Marx except that they have been told he was a bad guy. Many mistakenly believe he was a Russian revolutionary!
Americans have recently referred to publicly funded health as Marxist – with the implication that it shouldn’t go ahead. He said nothing on the topic as far as I know. He did however call for universal free education for children. Are those same people going to call for all the US government schools to be closed. They certainly are Marxist!
Its hard to have a sensible discussion with most Americans about Marx, but I’d just ask what else you think is Marxist besides AGW?
What about Evolutionary theory? Is that Marxist too?
Alex, #94:
Quite right! I’m watching, and waiting for him to get his foot a little further into his mouth.
PeterM
You ask Brute some surprising questions about Marxism.
Some definitions of Marxism:
No. Marx was not a “bad guy”. Just a German philosopher who, along with Engels, came up with some theories on “class struggle” and ultimate “utopia”.
The Soviet revolution and its aftermath demonstrated the limitations of these theories in actual practice.
In practice, Marxism became Leninism, which became Stalinism.
Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were two excellent treatises on the rise and fall of communism:
One was a 5-part German TV series entitled, “Die Revolution, die keine war” (“The Revolution that was not one”), which included film documentaries covering the entire life of the Soviet Union, from the period leading up to the October Revolution to the final collapse of the USSR.
The second was a book written by several French historians and political scientists entitled, “Le livre noir du communisme – crimes, terreur, répression” (“The black book of communism – crimes, terror, repression”). It has been translated into English and published by Harvard University Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The book points out that the heinous crimes a little more than a decade of Nazi-ism are well known today, but asks why it is that the crimes of almost a century of Communism, with its estimated 85 million deaths, are not equally well known.
For a good treatise on Marxism-Leninism in practice, I can highly recommend this book.
Max
PS Links between “Marxism” and the AGW movement are tenuous, at best. The only connection I could envision is the conflict between “central control by the State for the perceived common good” versus “individual liberty and freedom under a limited, democratically elected, representative government”. You once opined that “left-wing deniers of climate change are hard to find”, and this might reflect this philosophical conflict, which I believe Americans understand very well.
Right Pete.
Most of the world is not as “enlightened” as you.
Thanks for straightening the rest of us out comrade.
Brute and Max,
I would say that most of Europe and Australia operates on what can be termed as social democratic lines. For instance the arguments, between the various parties, in the recent UK elections weren’t about whether to abolish programs such as Public health and State funded education but, instead, centred around who as best qualified to improve them.
Now, there are those in the UK Conservative parties who would agree with you both and conc that they have no real interest in
Brute
Of course you are right about Woodie Guthrie’s hare-brained politics. He pretended to represent the “working class” (but never held down any kind of a working job, himself).
He apparently tried to join the US communist party, but was rejected as too much of a “loose cannon”.
And, yes, he was a “bum” in the true sense of the word.
But, unlike Hitler, who is known primarily for his disastrous political impact on our world (and not his paintings or the Autobahns), Guthrie is not principally known for his confused political views or his catastrophic personal life choices, but for the music, which he left behind.
I would not claim that this music is in any way in the same league as the many songs written by another misfit of a few years later, Hank Williams, but Guthrie’s songs did present a cultural snapshot of the Dust Bowl / Depression time period in which he lived.
And that’s about all that is really noteworthy about this otherwise screwed-up drifter, despite what some misguided pseudo-intellectual circles want to make out of him today.
Just my thoughts.
Max
I’m not sure what happened there the last post went off before I was ready. Anyway to continue…
Now, there are those in the UK Conservative parties who would agree with you both and concede they have no real interest in promising that they can offer a better NHS than Labor or the Liberals. They would very much agree with you that the British NHS is a monument to Labor’s Marxism and should be abolished.
Marxism, to them, and I dare say you too, is the involvement of ordinary people in the democratic process. They are the ones who are most vociferous with their anti-scientific objections to AGW. Fortunately most people in the UK and Australia don’t think that way, and neither do they think of themselves as Marxist, and would agree with Nick Clegg’s description of them as ‘nutters’. That’s why they were kept muzzled during the UK election and that was why AGW was never really an issue.
PeterM
You wrote:
This includes Switzerland, which may be more tilted toward a “democratic” rather than a “socialistic” system (where “democratic” means a democratically elected system of representative government, rather than a pure “democracy”).
And it also applies to the USA, with arguably even more slant in the “democratic” direction and slightly less “socialism”.
The differences are simply a matter of degree, Peter, with each nation (hopefully) getting the degree of “democracy” and “socialism” that its electorate wants and its economy can afford. And, in these “democratic” republics, the governments will be held accountable for providing the degree of “social democracy” that the voters want (or it will be replaced). And when, as is now the case in Greece, the nation can no longer afford the level of “socialism”, it will have to be cut back (as was done in Scandinavia a few years back).
Max
PeterM
Your thoughts on politics, AGW and the recent UK election (106 and 108) are interesting, but rather one-sided.
My impression was that AGW had become a political “hot potato” in the UK (thanks to the Brown administration’s exaggerated and increasingly unpopular policies?) and that the smart politicians stayed away from this topic during the election for that reason.
But I’d prefer hearing thoughts from a UK citizen and resident, such as the many posters here, who might know a bit more about this topic than either you or I.
Max
Alex #94
Thanks for the link to the Stott article. His site is always interesting. Anyone know how I can render it legible? It boasts it’s “made on a Mac” and I’m reading it on a Mac, but unlike all other sites I know, I can’t enlarge the typeface to readable size.
Huhne is likely to be a big story, since the media are bound to look for cracks in the coalition (it’s their job) and cabinet appointments don’t get any more cracked than this.
Guardian Environment have been predictably ecstatic about the Huhne appointment, for example here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/13/chris-huhne-energy-climate-secretary
Where they pose 10 questions for the new minister, covering the range of green concerns on energy. What I found interesting is the way the election has changed the way the questions are posed. Almost all of them concern carbon reduction policies to combat climate change, yet the subject is never mentioned directly. The election means we have moved on.
It seems to me that the result which warmists were hoping for from the publishing of IPCC AR4, then from Copenhagen, has finally been achieved by the election. We (by which I mean all the political parties, and almost all the mainstream media) can leave discussion of the science and its limitations behind us and make a fresh start with a fresh team doing what we all know has to be done. I was always doubtful about TonyN’s contention that “the warmists don’t know what’s hit them”. Whatever it was, it’s bounced off, and the election has wiped it from their minds.
Max,
AGW will be more of an issue in this year’s Australian election. Your comment’s about Brown backing away from the AGW are more applicable to our PM Rudd. It’s not done him any good though – he’s just lost a lot of personal credibility as a result.
But I guess that Australian politics may not be that interesting to many! More generally,I would argue that democracy is more important than socialism. But, as your #109 shows it is quite difficult to explain why they are different. Democracy was a dangerous concept to 19th century European aristocracy and the emerging new class of wealthy capitalists.
They would have been very concerned that under a democratic system the poorer classes would have simply voted to take away their estates and wealth to share around amongst all those who didn’t have any! Democracy had to be given away a little at a time in a controlled manner. Today, many of an extreme right wing disposition feel that the concerns of the European aristocracy were more than justified. As can be seen by their antics in opposing US care health reforms, their quarrel isn’t with Marxism or any individual Marxist, that’s just name calling against their elected President for doing exactly what he was elected to do, but with democracy itself.
UK resident here. AGW was a hot potato and was not motioned in public anywhere during the campaign. It’s a toxic subject. None of the politicians could risk being asked a question from the public about climategate, the failure of wind power over the cold winter, our increasing fuel costs and a host of other negative subjects.
Even when I had the Tory candidate for Stroud to myself for one hour he just did not want to engage with me on the subject. He was determined that the priorities were the economy, removing red tape from such areas as the police, the health service and reform of education, or as has been taught to the younger of my 4 children; propaganda.
The previous MP of Stroud wrote back to me calling me a denier in a rather bad tempered and intolerant replay to a letter I wrote to him. Good one Labour.
Now to me it is no surprise that Caroline Lucas can pick up a seat in an affluent area such as Brighton. She would have collected support from those without, due to her campaigning about local issues on their behalf, and she would have picked up support from some of the well off but generally ignorant twittering class, of which Brighton has more than its share. Greenery would be like a badge of membership in Brighton and nothing should be read into this result.
I work amongst well off people. I’m a mechanical engineer but now work in IT. I work with some clever people but very few of them especially those in the 30 to 45 band have a solitary clue about science, AGW or any other “real world subject” A good many are yet to feel the pinch of the recession that has hurt many in this country already and swallow hook line and sinker any words of authority. It is as if they have forgotten how to think for themselves.
It is this group that is about to face reality as they fill many of the highly paid posts in the mired of NGO’s, Quango’s and a hoard of other posts created in our over blown public sector.
Try talking to any of this group about the science of AGW, or about power production and you are more likely to face a barrage of ridicule than rational discussion. Seldom will they engage you with facts based on knowledge.
Plimer’s words at the Spectator talk here in London still ring true. When, he was asked, will we ditch AGW. When the money runs out he said. Well folks, the money has run out, especially in Europe, it’s just that many still won’t accept it.
Peter M Your view of the UK election from the other side of the world is way off the mark. Leave the in-depth analysis to us and stop trying to spin everything to your view. We are getting enough of that from many of those who lost the election, who are desperately trying to undermine the government already. Typical of the left that they just can not accept that they lost, and badly at that.
Geoffchambers #111 Some good points there and I had noticed something but couldn’t put my finger on it.
What Huhne will have to grapple with whether he likes it or not is that technology such as carbon capture does not work yet, and I am willing to bet will not work on the necessary industrial scale. Hulme will suffer at the hands of the sceptics in the Tory ranks if he tries to push expenditure on technology that will not work. He can no longer avoid reality.
And the list of technologies that have so far failed to produce any significant power are long.
On shore wind turbines are a total waste.
Carbon Capture still a lab technology and has not been built on an industrial scale.
Wave power still suffers from equipment failure as the elements continue to defy man
Solar cell are hugely expensive and fail to produce enough power
Hydrogen fuel cells work fine but the fuel is at the wrong end of the energy budget.
etc
etc
If anyone should doubt that the Euro is under stress read this. The thinking behind the Euro is remarkably similar to that that which has given us AGW Wooly
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=agwHp5N5FXA8
I think Brighton is unique due to their affluent green demographic. Totnes (Devon) was called one of the greenest places on the planet but the green candidate only got 3000 votes. Why? They are not affluent. I think the question of money will come increasingly to the fore, as building a green economy inevitably means extra costs as it requires expensive energy and travel.
The lib dems will find their coffee shop politics to be severely tested when they are in the real world of taking decisions that affect real people who are heartily sick of being told what to do, of having AGW continually rammed down their throats and who have no money to support a philosophy that many will consider a luxury.
When they realise the impact of the green economy on their pockets and how impractical many of the renewable energy schemes (regrettably)are, they will be forced to retthink. As Peter says;
“On shore wind turbines are a total waste.
Carbon Capture still a lab technology and has not been built on an industrial scale.
Wave power still suffers from equipment failure as the elements continue to defy man
Solar cell are hugely expensive and fail to produce enough power
Hydrogen fuel cells work fine but the fuel is at the wrong end of the energy budget”
We URGENTLY neeed very large sources of power. We have very large reserves of coal. We have been dithering over nuclear for a decade because of ideologies. The Lib dems can’t reasonably oppose the latter without accepting the need for the former.
When the public realise that their power will start to go out because of green politics its already diminishing popularity will diminish further. That would be a shame as it has its place-but that isn’t at the forefront of our battered economy.
tonyb
Tempterrain #111 Very good point about (some) right-wing opposition to Marxism being opposition to democracy in disguise. I agree with you on the politics and Brute on the non-existence of dangerous man-made global warming, and I still manage to sleep at night. (Oh, and Max on Woody Guthrie)
Back on-topic, Peter Geany’s comments at #113 about the ignorance of the management class in the public sector were interesting, depressing, and only too believable. Not sure about the analysis of the Lucas victory though. I thought Brighton was full of people forced to sell their flats in Islington when their dotcom business / acting career / novel didn’t take off – Guardian readers to a person, opinon leaders (at least within the politically engaged middle classes) and well-placed to spread their message. Environmentalism may be their way of downsizing their ambitions from Trotskyism. Not so much watermelons as mouldy tomatoes. (the last bit is just to baffle Brute).
Peter is surely right when he says “Greenery would be like a badge of membership in Brighton” . So it is for many in the left-leaning middle class, far beyond Brighton. Green thinking has conquered the media and the education system. So the Green Party looks a lot better placed to build on Lucas’s success than, say, Respect ever was.
Peter
I can’t speak for Australians, but I think you’ll find the majority of Britons who have a view on AGW will be sceptical of it, as the Science Museum found to its discomfiture when they set up their ‘Prove it’ poll, thinking it would establish the opposite.
Oh dear!
I’m just wondering how the EU plans to subsidize the “green” economy when they can’t pay for all of theparasites they have now?
Should be interesting…….
President Nicolas Sarkozy ‘threatened to pull France out of euro’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7723782/President-Nicolas-Sarkozy-threatened-to-pull-France-out-of-euro.html
Alex, TonyN,
Huhne looks likely to get a lot of press coverage. See
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100039803/is-this-the-most-dangerous-man-in-britain/
Delingpole begins: “Remember those innocent days when we used to worry about whose finger was on the nuclear trigger? Well much more dangerous now, I’m afraid, is the man with his finger on the nuclear off-button”.
He also quotes Philip Stott’s blog, saying: “To those of you who think this is just the ranting of a right-wing AGW-denying headbanger, listen to the wise words of Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography, and avowed socialist”
Is Delingpole a lesson to us all in political tolerance?
Alex and geoff
I cannot say with any certainty that this applies for the appointment of Chris Huhne as energy and climate change secretary, but it is often the case in Germany and Switzerland that “problematic” departments are assigned (in a coalition or non-one party government) to a minority party representative, in order to move this representative from an extreme position (where he/she would be problematic as an “opposition party outsider”) to the political “mainstream” center (where he/she is forced to act reasonably and responsibly, in the overall interest of the total voting population, which he/she now represents (rather than just the interests of the own party).
Let’s see if it works out that way here.
Max
PeterM and JamesP
You wrote (about skepticism of the AGW premise):
JamesP has pointed out that this is not true for the UK, based on the Science Museum poll (that backfired on the poll takers, who had hoped to get an endorsement of their views).
The polls do not support your statement on this for Australia, either. Looks like they are showing that the Australian public, as it is getting better informed on AGW, is also becoming more skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious threat, which requires immediate action.
http://worldisgreen.com/2009/10/14/lowy-poll-climate-change-opinion-in-australia-is-changing/
Get used to it, Peter. As people around the world become better informed and more knowledgeable on the AGW issue, they also become more skeptical of the premise that this represents a serious threat.
Max
Geoff, Max, TonyN, everyone, I have a bit more on the Huhne appointment but will comment on the newest thread…
Max, re your #121, that’s an interesting point and reminds me a little of Sun Tzu (?): “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”.
Alex,
I like the SunTzu quote, though Lyndon Johnson said it more pithily (sorry).
Max,
While you’re undoubtedly right that scepticism is rising and is almost certainly the majority opinion wherever it has been measured, I must take issue with you on two points. Since our criticism of “the science” of global warming is based on their questionable use of statistics, we can’t allow ourselves to be careless, even with statistics as frequently dodgy as public opinion polls.
First, the Science Museum poll cannot be treated as a measure of anything (except possibly of the daftness of the PR outfit who set it up, with taxpayers’ money). Second, shifts in public opinion like the ones you mention can’t be attributed to the public getting better informed on AGW, unless there is some evidence for this greater awareness. The 2009 figure , showing a massive drop in people in Australia thinking global warming is a serious and pressing problem, is pre-Climategate and Copenhagen. The number of people who follow the global warming story, whether as sceptics or believers, is probably too small to show up in polls anyway, and the direct effect of these events on public opinion is therefore probably near zero. Which is not to say there may not eventually be a mediated effect, as information filters through the media and the political system. I would guess (and it’s only a guess) that opinions are more influenced by the articles people read on events which count for them, like the Australian heat wave and subsequent tragic forest fires, or the political problems of the government getting its carbon policy through parliament. These events are essentially random. In the Northern Hemisphere we’ve had a lot of cold weather and some disasters (volcanoes and earthquakes) which can’t be blamed on global warming. These have moved public opinion in the direction of scepticism, I suspect far more effectively than Climategate and Copenhagen.
On your comment #121 on taming troublesome coalition partners in European governments, France is likely to provide an interesting example in 2012, when the increasingly unpopular Sarkozy is likely to lose to a Socialist / Green coalition. The Greens will undoubtedly insist on being allotted a proportion of winnable seats which reflects their popularity in the polls, so we can expect to see about 60 Green MPs in Parliament, up from zero at present.
Geoff, re #111:
That is only one of the possible explanations of the way in which the Guardian’s questions were framed. Another is that the green PR machine, which I am sure would have ‘advised’ James Murray, has accepted that any mention of AGW is now counter productive. It is likely to promote scepticism by raising questions to which there are only inconvenient answers, and that are likely to drag the scandals of last winter back into the news.
This is exemplified by question 9:
If what you are saying was true, then that is a question that would not need posing: everyone would know and accept that the answer is the established and immmediate dangers of CAGW.
The main impression that I get from the questions is that there is no joined up thinking at all so far as energy policy is concerned. Ed Miliband may well be a sincere believer in environmental Armageddon, but he is also a ruthless and extremely ambitious politician. Looking back at his selection of initiatives while he was at DECC, it would seem likely that his priority was to pick the low fruit that would be eye-catching and promote his reputation prior to a leadership bid. It will be very interesting to see how much climate change figures in his campaign now he has thrown his hat in the ring.
If you know what question 10 is about I would be very grateful for a hint:
That one seems to have passed me by completely.