Now that the dust is beginning to settle after the elections for the European Parliament, it’s worth asking what part ‘the most serious threat facing us today’ played in the results. Surely climate change must have been in the forefront of most people’s minds as they made their mark on the ballot paper?
Here are the results for the main contenders:
Of the six parties at the top of the list, only one has climate scepticism as a stated policy, and that is UKIP, who came second ahead of the ruling Labour Party for whom the crusade against global warming is a major priority. (For those who are not familiar with UK politics, UKIP’s main policy is withdrawal from the EU.)
The Liberal Democrats, who arguably take an even stronger line on saving the planet, than Labour, lost ground.
The Conservatives, whose pronouncements on climate change attempt to match Labour’s, only increased their share of the vote slightly at a time when they are almost certain to form the next government and were expected to do much better.
So where did all those people who are so concerned about ‘the most serious threat facing us today’ make their mark on the ballot papers? Surely this is the moment when the Green Party should have come from nowhere and, sweeping all before it, claimed a place at the top table?
In the run-up to the elections there was much talk of the MP’s expense’s scandal driving voters into the arms of the minor parties; a protest against the conduct of politicians in general. This certainly seems to have worked for UKIP, but it was expected that the Greens and the BNP would benefit too. Evidence of this is hard to find.
During the BBC’s election night coverage, neither the pundits who were on hand to try and make the whole thing seem exciting, or David Dimbleby and Emily Maitlis, who where the presenters, made any secret of their contempt for the BNP or the horror they felt at these extreme right-wing thugs managing to win a couple of seats in the European Parliament for the first time. This reaction was predictable, but things are not always quite what they seem.
Pollsters had in fact expected the BNP to do even better, but one of the pundits (Danny Finkelstein of The Times I think) explained that, although the main parties had been at each others throats in the usual aggressive way during the campaign, there had also been a surprising high degree of cooperation and coordination between them on one matter. They had liaised to ensure that particularly strong candidates were fielded wherever there was a chance of BNP gains. Therefore any gains that this party made were achieved in the face of everyone else ganging up on them.
So where does this leave the Greens? When David Dimbleby interviewed their leader, Caroline Lucas, she seemed somewhat restrained and modest in her reaction to her party’s performance; not characteristics that one would normally associate with this particular politician. Why should this be when she had seen a 30% increase in her party’s share of the vote? One even got the impression that she might be hiding a certain disappointment.
It is inevitable that the Green Party’s performance and that of the BNP should be compared, despite the huge ethical gulf that separates them politically. They are the only two non-nationalist minor parties that were expected to make a showing in this election, other than UKIP, which has clearly moved into a different league.
For the Green’s, election night should have been a triumph, in the same way that it was for UKIP. Ever since the last European elections in 2004, there has been a steady crescendo of alarmism over global warming until it has become a major political issue, and surely the Greens should have benefited enormously from this. The topic with which they are associated to a greater extent than any other party has moved centre stage.
It is interesting to contrast their situation directly with that of the BNP, who are generally reviled and who faced a mass onslaught from every other party in the election. The situation of the Green Party is almost the opposite of the BNP. With the exception of UKIP, the other parties have, in effect, been assisting with their campaign for most of the five years since the last election; they have all been promoting fears of global warming. The Greens could not possibly have raised the level of concern about ‘the environment’ in general, and climate change in particular, to the present hysterical levels by their own efforts. Surely the scene had been set for an electoral breakthrough?
A look at the figures tells rather a sad story, and may explain Caroline Lucas’ less than triumphalist reaction to David Dimbleby’s congratulations. Her party had polled 1.3m votes against 1.03m in the 2004 election. That contrasts poorly with 2.3m votes in the 1989 election and the rise from 0.63m votes in the 1999 election to 1.03m in the 2004 election.
Needless to say these are statistics that the BBC’s psephologists, who seemed to be on hand to instantly provide historic data to put results into context, had nothing to say about at all.
What seems to have emerged from the elections, in which climate change played a relatively minor part, is that a party which is sceptical about global warming came from nowhere to run the ruling party into third place; that the ruling party, which has the highest profile position on global warming, performed abysmally; and that the Green Party, which is the only one entirely devoted to environmental matters, seemed unable to make major gains when, apparently, their time had come and everything was in their favour.
Whatever the politicians, scientists, and the media may be telling voters about climate change, it would seem that this is not feeding through into radical re-alignment of voting patterns. The people who had most cause for rejoicing on election night were undoubtedly UKIP, whose scepticism about the grand European project, and one of its crucial policies – fighting climate change – triumphed at the ballot box.
A very interesting and startling analysis, one that will have the (international) greens very worried indeed.
If, after all this publicity, indoctrination and hysteria they haven’t made an impact then I think we can safely predict a further weakening of the climatastrophe scenario and a setting of the green sun…
I agree, a solid analysis of what has to have been a disappointment for the Greens, although they have been talking up their increased vote share (up by 43.7%, according to the BBC, although that didn’t win them any extra seats.) After having the fear of AGW being drummed into us for years by the three main political parties plus the media, the fact remains that the “real threat of dangerous climate change” (words from the Green Party website) is way behind the economy, the MPs’ expenses furore, unemployment and immigration on the public radar. When there are 3 million without employment in the UK and not many “green jobs” to go round, I don’t think committing ever more resources to combat the unfolding non-catastrophe of Global Warming is going to be much of a vote-winner.
A very good analysis. My son is doing politics and will be exploring the ethics of climate change policy for his dissertation. There has been a sea change in people’s attitudes of late and its time our Politicians started to listen. It’s obvious that the Labour party has not understood at all the last month or so, and they continue to blame their woes on everything else they can think of other than their actions.
Our friend Nick Clegg was expecting much more from the European elections and he must be wondering what happened. I am sure that the Greens and the Lib Dems will not accept that some part of their woes are down to the hysteria of Climate change, but it can not be long before a question comes up on Question Time or some other public forum along the lines of “we have been kept in the dark over all manner of issue within Government that have turned out to be false, why should climate change be any different and why should we believe the hysteria, or why can we not discuss the issue in the open?”.
It can not have escaped anyone that the climate has been off the agenda recently save for a number of fact less and complete baseless reports form scientist trying to ensure their money keeps flowing in, apart from the Obama Government that desperately needs the climate to be at the front so that they can tax fuel. The US has no way of meeting any of the idiotic targets for CO2, but it will raise trillions in taxes.
David Cameron is talking Public expenditure cuts, and I think that climate research will be cut if as is likely the Tories get into power, despite his past rhetoric on the subject. But don’t expect to hear this before they are in power as it will be an easy hit for Labour to ramp up the emotional blackmail on this subject, so my advice would be to stick to those subjects that impact the electorate directly, such as taxes and jobs.
I also detect a change at the BBC. I think it may be finally dawning on a number of them that when Labour goes there will be a long hard look at the licence fee, and many of the liberal elitist views they force upon us may need to be balanced will the other side of the story. We all know that they have taken a deliberately unbalanced view as they have been sure they are right and they pedal their climate alarmism for our own good. I have had some two way correspondence recently with one or two of their correspondents and I am hoping that they now realise they continue on their present course at their peril.
I think this European election result has sent more than just a few shockwaves all over Europe, and perhaps has set us back on the road of commonsense, where our elected representatives represent us and not tell us continuously what to do.
Ye I know I’m an optimist, but if matters don’t improve I think we may become more extreme as an electorate.
Peter Geany:
Some interesting observations. When your son starts researching his dissertation, I hope that he won’t miss out the little shocker from the government discussed here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=47
Few people seem to have noticed it, and it certainly raises some fascinating ethical issues.
Another party is sceptical, though its scepticism probably helps the orthodox:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jun/09/climate-change-oil
Nick Griffin: OK, how about the fact that I believe, along with the Czech politician [Vaclav Klaus] everyone is berating, that global warming is essentially a hoax. It is being exploited by the liberal elite as a means of taxing and controlling us….
Another google shows Griffin’s favourite book to be the libertarian ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Odd.
Duich:
I was afraid that he might be a sceptic, but its difficult to get everything wrong so long as you can get some things right for the wrong reasons.
I was sitting down with my Son last night discussing a range of issues and I asked him why those of the “liberal elite” for want of a better tag always found it so difficult to modify their views in the face of overwhelming evidence that they may be wrong. One of the answers he thinks and I tend to agree with, is that this group has a core view that ignores the individual and seeks to apply their thought to the population as a whole and see it as their role to enforce their views for the common good. They as a group find it impossible to conceive that there may be another valid view that could be held by the majority. They are also in a special place where they dish out the majority of PhD’s in arrogance.
The interesting thing is that this group is far from being “liberal” and closer to a dictatorship, and it often requires a more extreme shift amongst an electorate to get across a more consensuses view.
If we apply this to the Climate Change circus, we find now a lose coalition of views developing that will take in those from the centre who are just feed up with being put upon and don’t see the evidence as being particularly strong or pressing, as well as those from the extremes who will oppose all and any scheme that seeks to impose tax and controls on how we live, but without any real interest in the particular issue.
There is further to go before we get one of the mainstream parties to openly come out against the climate change, (UKIP are almost there for now) and it won’t be before the next election for reasons I have previously stated. But the liberal elite is continuing with the fatal mistake they made prior to the Euro elections of trying to discredit those who are sceptical of their views, for example climate change, by associating the sceptical stance with the far right (BNP) This tactic failed to change anything at the euro elections and will continue to fail whilst they fail to come up with any sensible arguments that support climate change.
Discussing these issues with some of my work colleagues who are obvious and active Labour supporters only reinforces my view that they have not understood anything that has occurred in the last 3 months; let lone the last 10 years; and I think they are moving into complete denial. The election of the new speaker demonstrates this.
Those of us that have viewed the available evidence that manmade emissions of CO2 drives the climate, can readily see there is little or no proof that this is so, and it is going to be an interesting time watching this game unfold. I just hope Gordon does not enact something stupid before the next election, but I’m sure he sees a carbon tax as the way he is going to rescues the public finances. He has a previous track record of doing this to the determent of the ceramic industry and road transport.
Peter:
That’s an interesting comment.
In view of the ideas that you share with your son, and have set out in the first paragraph, this may provide some interesting background.
http://www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/CPS_assets/629_ProductPreviewFile.pdf
This includes some interesting evidence of a liberal clique within the BBC being quite unable to accept that there can be any rational point of view that is at variance with their own opinions.
So far as the Prime Minister enacting ‘something stupid’ in connection with climate change is concerned, I wonder if this is, perhaps, the only way in which a radical shift in opinion will come about.
In another rather bad tempered discussion of climate change policy on Newsnight last evening, Paxo asked Ed Milliband why, if the science is reliable, governments were not taking far more decisive action on mitigation in the form of legislation. The answer he got was, of course, ‘but we are!’ Even so, the question hung in the air.
Tony
I missed news night last night; I’ll have to check that out on iPlayer tonight. I’m surprised as Paxo has for me been one of the huge disappointments in the BBC as he has mercilessly torn apart anyone who has questioned climate change in the past as if they must have had 2 heads, and at times put them down in a way that has markedly reduced my respect for him, and yet let some like Fred Astaire (Adair Turner), Stern and King amongst others, get away with the most outrageous utterances that deserved immediate ridicule.
I have tried emailing Paxo but he never answers, or has some lackey bin them for him. It’s a shame as it’s well known presenters like him that we need to start some real in-depth questioning of not just climate change but the whole wasted direction of our energy policy and highlight to the electorate just what a perilous state our generation facilities are in, which more than anything contributed to the increased energy costs we have seen this year.
Some interesting points about the ‘liberal elite’:
1) The BBC is part of this liberal elite – but is also their eyes and ears to get input from the outside world. This means they live in a closed system and end up getting their own propaganda instead of balanced information about reality.
2) Communism provided a fixed meal of the day. The collapse of communism means that these people now pick and mix an often-incoherent set of views from a cafeteria-style choice. In this post-modern world, these views and opinions are no longer based on a coherent rationally-argued set of ideas nor on personal experience. Instead they just choose opinions that make them feel good about themselves. “I’m doing X for the children” “I’m doing Y to help the 3rd world”
As in “I’m going to sit in the dark for an hour to save the polar bears”
Jack:
Thanks for the puff at WUWT. By coincidence I had a post drafted that fitted rather well with the Anthony Watts Aldrin thread, so I’ve put it up here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=201
I note that the Greens have come in fifth place behind UKIP in the Norwich North by-election.
Some slightly varying conclusions from this result:
From the Green Party’s website: “Norwich Greens triple their vote in Norwich North: Green party campaigners were today celebrating their performance in the Norwich North by-election after more than tripling their vote, compared with the 2005 general election. The result is the best performance ever for the Green Party in a Westminster by-election. Rupert Read for the Green Party received 9.7% of the vote, up from 1,252 in 2005 to 3,350 today.In comparison to 2005, the votes of Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties all went down. The Labour and LibDem vote also fell as a proportion of the turnout. Adrian Ramsay, opposition leader on Norwich council, and the Green Party’s deputy leader, said: “This was our best by-election result ever…”
Ian Dunt of politics.co.uk: “The real losers were the Greens, who had very high hopes going into the contest. They ended fifth, behind Ukip. Speaking of momentum, it is still difficult to find any for the Green party. Its support in the country is easily high enough to have earned greater representation. Indeed, its absence in many of our democratic institutions is an indictment of our electoral system as well as an unfortunate by-product of its appeal.”
There’s also an interesting post re the BBC, UKIP and the Greens here on Bishop Hill’s blog.
Alex
I seem to remember David Dimbleby suggesting during BBC coverage of the Euro Elections that Norwich might be the first parliamentary seat that the Greens would win.
And I don’t think that Auntie has managed to admit to herself that UKIP increased its share of the vote at Norwich by 9.45% over their performance in the 2005 General Election, which rather puts all the other parties in the shade, including the Greens at 7.05%. On the other hand they have been constantly hammering the Tories for only improving their share by 6.26%.
In vox pop interviews, quite a few committed Labour supporters have said that they were going to vote green this time round. But I don’t see them doing that at the General Election.