UKIP triumph

The news that UKIP have topped the polls for the European Parliament is clearly of great moment, and it's worth considering for a moment whether the party's energy and climate change policies have played any part in the victory. It's possible that the word is getting out about renewables and shale gas and that some voters are attracted to a party that is not caught up in the destructive green zeitgeist. But the much smaller advances made by the party in the local elections suggest that the effect is small.

There's still a long way to go.

Comments

[Stephen Richards]

May 26, 2014 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Le Front National got 25% of the vote RR, and I was one of the millions. However, Mine was definitely a protest vote. I would not like to see the FN get anywhere near any sort of power in France. The French are a bit neurotic over the FN and EU. They voted against expansion in De Gaulle's time and then again more recently, I think it was with Chirac. They don't like the EU for fear of losing their Agri Funds but they also hate being told to cut their spending and deficit. The FN, under Marie le Pen got to the second round of voting against Chirac with 28% a few years ago and brought people on to the streets in protest. He was soundly beaten in the second round and never recovered from it. Marine Le Pen has been more subtle and, IMHO, more devious.

I know that the EU needs a complete shake out but I don't see it happening in the next 5 years. We will need to turn the system on it's head before it will change. The likes of the Kinnock familly will defend their £millions for all they are worth, and that's a lot.

[Stephen Richards]

So much for stereotypes.

May 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Something you are not. Don

[geoffchambers]

The good Bishop asks what effect their energy and climate change policies may have had on UKIP's success. I do fantasy polling the way others do fantasy football, and all my researches indicate that the answer is: zero.

I'd like to turn the question round: What effect may UKIP's success have on Europe's (and therefore Britain's) energy and climate policies?

In eighteen months' time the big post-Copenhagen doom binge takes place in Paris. It will have all the ingredients that UKIP stands against: overpaid politicians and bureaucrats meeting to slap each other on the back at the taxpayer's expense, applauded by a Greenpeace/WTF Rentacrowd subsidised by the European Union. What's not to hate?

Those 140+ Eurosceptics elected yesterday will have every reason to do everything in their power to block all European subsidies for this kind of affair. It really doesn't matter what the transient climate response is, the thing that will get to the average Euro-voter is the news that he's spending millions sending the likes of the United Kingdom Youth Climate Change Committee round the world to wear t-shirts in front of television cameras.

Get the news out to your UKIP MEPs.

[Pharos]

I had two long held personal policy support red lines - EU scepticism and Climate Change scepticism, that sent me to UKIP way back in 2008 with the Climate Change Act vote and Cameron's support for it.

There are so many parallels between the recent establishment/media campaign of vilification against UKIP to the abuse of climate scepticism that we have become wearily accustomed to. It is becoming obvious that both EU and Climate agendas are vehicles of, lets not call it a conspiracy, but rather as Margaret Thatcher came to realise in her memoirs - 'a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism' - an elaborate agenda of social engineering by a cynical post-democratic political elite with entrenched power and influence.

Then up rose Grand-dad's Army.

[Alexander K]

The gains made by UKIP are significant, in that most of the UK population appear, from my observations made whilst working there, to vote along tribal lines, but it is not easy, as Bruce Hoult stated above, to see exactly what is happening from here in New Zealand.
The most disturbing feature exhibited by politicians in the UK was their almost absolute disconnect from the life of the average wage and salary earner and the politicians enormous sense of entitlement, which was revealed during the Parliamentary Expenses Scandals, which, while very illuminating, did not appear to cause any sort of paradigm shift on the part of the politicians. Generally, UK politicians of the three main parties appeared to me to be almost totally lacking in ethics and in any sort of empathy with the people they claimed to represent.

[Skiphil]

as a Yank I'm in no position to assess all the details, but this comment on WUWT strikes me as making a strong case against the EU (in relation to the UK anyway), and a strong case for the UKIP being able to help matters. But what do I know, heh heh..... will it help with re-assessments of energy and climate policies, both in the UK and even the EU? Seems plausible to me.....

Criticism of EU and praise for UKIP

Sasha says:
May 26, 2014 at 8:48 am
THE EU DREAM IS OVER

Britain has 12% of the EU population, but:
one EU council place out of 28,
one Commissioner out of 28,
under 10% of all MEP’s,
5% of the EU civil service,
…and yet spends more than any other country to prop up this corrupt bureaucratic fairyland except Germany – and that’s only because the Germans had to absorb East Germany!

We were lied to by that misanthrope Heath, and now we are saddled with a permanent eurozone majority in the Council and the Commission. All the EU leaders say they want a “United States of Europe” in spite of their populations saying consistantly that they don’t.

The British public see the EU as the biggest problem in their lives, and have just expressed their collective frustration at not being able to do alter the way the EU is governed, run, or how EU policies are proposed and imposed more and more intrusively over them.

WHY ARE WE SO ANGRY WITH OUR “RULING” POLITICIANS?
Look at the state they have put us in:
Britain will pay £100 billion in gross EU budget contributions in a 5-year Parliament.
Britain loses from the single market given our weakness in goods exports and Germany’s strength, which is where around half our EU deficit comes from, then added to that EU national protectionism in services. From 2007 to 2012 we had a balance of payments deficit with the EU of £241 billion but a surplus with the rest of the world.
Britain loses from open borders. We are a “dumping ground” for millions of economic refugees. In 2013 70% of all new national insurance numbers were to immigrants from the EU and elsewhere. Add to this unsustainable pressure on housing, jobs, state services and finances.
Britain loses £60 billion every 5-year Parliament from the opportunity cost of EU agricultural protectionism (that’s the French we are talking about as they have sabotaged every effort to reform the Common Agricultural Policy in the last 41 years).
Britain loses by not being able to set its own free trade based trade treaties.
Britain loses its foreign policy independence, replaced by Lady Ashton’s superstate building diplomatic service; witness the aggressive expansionism of the EU towards the Urals which has made Putin react in Ukraine.
Britain has lost its fishing grounds (thank you so much, Spain).
Britain has lost its ability to tax multinationals or set its own business, state benefits and consumer laws. This power was lost through the spread of “mutual recognition” and “harmonisation” policies, which now cost the British hundreds of billions of pounds every 5-year Parliament.
Britain has lost its judicial independence to the ECJ AND ECHR.
Britain has been forced to let the EU see the Chancellor’s annual budget, and our economic policy must pay heed to the economic well-being of the EU.
Britain has lost its political sovereignty. Viviane Reding confirmed that 75% of UK laws are set by the EU over which we have next to no influence. So EU laws are imposed on us whether we like them or not. There is a word for this.

It is clear then; Britain getting out of the EU would regain political and judicial sovereignty, cut costs, increase trade, cut consumer prices, raise multinational taxes, cut state spending and control our borders.

That’s why UKIP is so important to us. No other party offers the British back their freedoms and self-determination, and we are powerless over the EU until that happens.

[clipe]

Cartoon from Canada

[Skiphil]

OT: Often I seem to land on a thread just as it is gasping its last breath. Do I have this effect on threads, or do I simply happen to get here when they are all played out (for sure, my online presence is only sporadic).

I am very concerned..... (if anyone is still reading this thread)

[anonym]

geoffchambers:

The good Bishop asks what effect their energy and climate change policies may have had on UKIP's success. I do fantasy polling the way others do fantasy football, and all my researches indicate that the answer is: zero.

Given the popularity of Miliband's chavismo price-cap promise it may even be a negative effect.

Apparently the British wish to be reminded

[anonym]

...what the worst of the post-war, pre-Thatcher/Blair economic era looked like.

[Hilary Ostrov]

May 27, 2014 at 1:20 AM | Registered Commenter Skiphil

Often I seem to land on a thread just as it is gasping its last breath [...]

Skiphil, I agree it is somewhat disconcerting to find one's carefully chosen words appear not to have been seen! I've often found my own comments to be the last in a thread, here And sometimes I wonder ... gee, did anyone hear my voice?!

But, I wouldn't be too concerned ... to my mind, it's just one of the mysteries (and/or vagaries) of virtual life - at least on our host's side of the pond ;-)

[Jack Cowper]

BBC employees caught making Anti-UKIP tweets:

http://order-order.com/2014/05/23/bbc-news-warn-all-news-staff-over-anti-ukip-tweets/

Not really that surprising is it.

[Euan Mearns]

Philip Foster, I have no issue if the IPCC were to be dissolved. On Europe I'm a bit more schizophrenic. I'm actually pro-European but heavily opposed to most of the meddling unelected Commission. You are perhaps correct in saying that it cannot be reformed but I doubt that UKIP will gain much traction during a general election. I believe the Euro sceptic parties have done everyone a great favour this weekend in providing leverage for reform. The Lib Dems with their Green and pro-Europe policies look dead in the water for a generation. It is always possible that a party like UKIP may end up holding balance in a coalition.

[Vernon E]

Partly, Bish, yes. Its all part of the public distrust in pretty well everything the politicos are telling us. Climate is definitely in there. Mr & Mrs Voter certainly put two and two together and made four knowing that utilities charges are rising and blackouts are imminent, windmills are blighting our countryside and the politicos put it all down to global warming which didn't happen. Yes, a definite contributor to UKIP's success.

[kellydown]

I'm actually pro-European but heavily opposed to most of the meddling unelected Commission./

I agree with Euan.

Doing business across Europe, the common market aspect is great.

But the increasing concentration of power in unelected technocracy and bureaucracy is a creeping disaster that ought be opposed by all democrats of whatever political stripe. This position seems too nuanced for the media to grasp but is held by a large number of people who are not necessarily racist, xenophobic or even anti-immigration - but might have voted for UKIP .

I don't know that you can't unbundle the EU's powers - we need a separation between EU and national governments like that which was arrived at between church and state. I hope that's possible.

[Chairman Al]

Today, the Green Alliance Blog has an interesting take on the role of newly elected MEPs.

MEPs have a strong public mandate on climate issues
So what lies ahead for MEPs starting work in the new term? As Green Alliance’s recent policy insight demonstrates – quite a lot. MEPs have a clear public mandate to act on climate change, with 90 per cent of European citizens considering it a serious problem, and 77 per cent of people in the UK agree that tackling it will help to boost the economy and jobs. As they take up their committee positions and get down to business there are some key decisions ahead.

This data is referenced from the EU Commissions Special Eurobarometer 409 published in March this year. Others have a different analysis on this report:

…the only countries that seem to worry even remotely about global warming are Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Malta (global warming is 3rd or 4th most important). Perhaps not so surprisingly, these are also the countries that are feeling the least worried about their economy. So, when you’re rich and unconcerned, you can allow yourself to also worry a bit about global warming. But otherwise, you care about more immediate issues.

The Green Alliance goes on to say:

In the next term the EU will be agreeing its 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, deciding emissions and renewables targets and its approach to improving energy efficiency. Work is underway and MEPs have already voted for more ambitious targets than those proposed by the Commission. The new intake of MEPs will agree the final framework in the coming year through co-decision with the Council of national ministers. The Energy Efficiency Directive and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme are both being reviewed and reformed over the coming term. And MEPs will have a say on the position that the EU will take to the global climate talks in 2015.

Given that the new MEPs are likely to be completely different beasts from the old MEPs with different priorities my betting is that some serious attempts will be made to further water down the 2030 framework, ETS and EED. Watch this space.

[kellydown]

MEPs have a strong public mandate on climate issues

I suppose this is part of the rise of the "new fascism" and "swing to the right" or are we supposed to hold opposing thoughts simultaneously?

Let's face it, the small number voting in UK EU elections doesn't amount to a "strong public mandate" in anything. Not strong, and not representative of the public,

[Euan Mearns]

kellydown, one aspect of the European experiment I find myself agreeing with is the redistribution of wealth from wealthy to poorer countries. For example a few decades ago the Balkans were emerging from decades of fascist dictatorship. And E Europe is still emerging from decades of command and control economy. I think the assistance offered these states from the EU is ultimately of great benefit to all. Equalisation of standards, the development of trading partners and integration to a level that makes wars impossible - though they are still going on.

The trick is finding the right balance. How much redistribution? How much immigration? The preservation of national identities. But then there is too much integration with the € that has caused enormous tensions and poverty. And all the meddling with centralistaion of agriculture, fishing, energy, human rights to name but a few things that are best left to national governments. And the interventions in Ukraine - idiotic and intolerable!

It is difficult to pin down what shaped European voter's behaviour. I'm guessing economy would be one issue and the EU energy policy is one of the drag anchors on the EU economy.

[kellydown]

Euan, I think the opening up of borders and reduction of trade restrictions has been great , on balance, for all countries, although of course in any change there will be losers as well as winners. That has led to a better distribution of wealth for sure.

But I'm not so sure about distributing cash. I think that leads to a kind of corruption. I've seen enough in certain areas of certain countries where local mafias hoover up EU cash with great skill and locals' entrepreneurship seems focused around obtaining grants for otherwise unproductive schemes padded with cushy non-jobs rather than goods and services that there is actually a demand for, or innovations that can make a difference.

[Philip Foster]

"I agree with Euan.
Doing business across Europe, the common market aspect is great."

Why do people think the single market is great? It's the opposite of a free market. It's essentially statist and corporatist. The big corporates have the Commission in their pockets who then frame regulations and directives on their behalf which keep small and energetic competitors out of the market. Result? corruption at the highest level, high prices for everyone, and everyone getting progressively poorer. It's the old Prussian Zollverein (customs union).
The EU is a 19th century 'solution' to an 18th cent. European problem.

[Euan Mearns]

kelly, in my previous comment I meant to say Iberia (not Balkans). I think Portugal and Spain have benefited enormously from being in the EU. And we have benefited too. In terms of how this has worked is a grey zone. A number of levers being pulled, some are good and some are bad. On the distribution of cash, I agree that is questionable. Helping to fund the building a road, a railway or a hydroelectric dam may accelerate growth. Ploughing money in to Green growth may actually be sowing the seeds of Green cancer.

[kellydown]

Philip, in our case, as a small business, it's not about a single market at all, but easier flow between producers/providers and the various markets. Sure big corporations will always nestle up to bureaucrats - they resemble each other more than either resembles small enterprises. But arguably they do that even more restrictively within closed borders.

[johanna]

Thanks to all contributors to this thread. As an Aussie, it has been difficult for me to get a handle on what the UKIP results in both local and European elections are about.

The ABC has reported the results, literally, as a group of "noisy dissidents" causing problems for the grownups who run the EU.

[Garethman]

Don't get too excited. UKIP had 25% of the vote or thereabouts. A substantial achievement. But the voter turnout was about 35%. So just over 8% of the voting population voted for UKIP. UKIP had the highest number of votes, but apathy won by a landslide.

[Entropic man]

Why so eager to vote for a demagogue?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/demagogue

[Martin A]

Your word EM - not anybody else's so far as I can see.

[Entropic man]

Farage leads a party with no coherent policies, playing on voters' fears; blaming our problems on the EU and immigrants. He cultivates a beer drinking, fag smoking public image of " a man of the people" despite his professional background.

He fits the definition of a demagogue.

I am surprised that the commenters on this blog, and Montford himself, are so credulous.

[Martin A]

EM - I think we get the picture. You don't like the UKIP and you are perplexed why some people have views different from yours.

I think you have a blind spot (which also shows up in other things you post on BH) as an inability to see points of view different from your own. I suggest, as an exercise, you try to think of some reasons why people might vote UKIP - other than their credulity or that they are bad people.

If you can't do so, it will confirm your blind spot.

[tomo]

EM

and your evaluation of Natalie Bennett.... ?

[kellydown]

Farage leads a party with no coherent policies

I didn't vote for his party but even I can see through that.

Two of UKIP's policies are quite clear -
EU - "Free trade, but not political union, with our European neighbours".
Immigration - basically, what Australia, NZ, USA & Canada do. All countries which take substantial amount of immigration from everywhere.

[Entropic man]

A lot of voters chose UKIP as a protest vote.

Look at their website and you see a range of promise policies with no indication how they intend to get there from here, nor how it is all to be paid for.

[Entropic man]

A lot of voters chose UKIP as a protest vote.

Look at their website and you see a range of promise policies with no indication how they intend to get there from here, nor how it is all to be paid for.

[kellydown]

Look at their website and you see a range of promise policies with no indication how they intend to get there from here, nor how it is all to be paid for.

Look at any party's website. Especially the SNP.

I agree that UKIP are short on details but that's not what the media have been attacking them on.
It's all Racism and Xenophobia accusations, which appear to have backfired.. Either because the UK is Racist and Xenophobic, or the accusations were seen through as false.

[Entropic man]

Kelly down

I' m not much concerned with the media accusations. I'm concerned that UKIP are playing on people's fears by blaming acapegoats and then promising easy solutions they cannot deliver.