JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

The UK Election

UPDATE: So far it’s being called a “shock victory” for conservatives, and a humiliation for Labor. See also ABC UK Election results. Farage not looking likely to win his seat.

An election to watch for those concerned that bigger bureaucracy suffocates science. Will the creeping rise of big-government  in the West stall?

The old party-landscape is quaking in a land where last year 45% of the Scottish voted for permanently not-voting at any more UK Elections. Nearly half the Scots wanted out of the Union — that’s flat out remarkable. Meanwhile,  UKIP, which got 3% of the vote in 2010, are now polling at 12%. As with most western nations the main parties have been mirror images of “left” or “more left” and voters get the choice of big or bigger government. Nigel Farage, heading UKIP,  is posing such a threat to that system, that in his own seat Labor voters are said to be thinking of voting conservative, just to keep him out. (More evidence that modern conservative parties are often just Labor-lite). Conservatives are thinking of voting against conservatives (see Delingpole below), and Labor are thinking of voting for them. What a difference a UKIP has made.

Yet he [Farage] is in a tough fight. Polling by Lord Ashcroft puts him two points behind the well-selected Tory candidate—Craig Mackinlay, a former “Kipper”—and suggests Labour voters are switching to the Tories to keep him out. Proof of the antipathy Mr Farage excites is also visible on the high street. As he strolls in his pin-striped suit, the scarlet-haired leader of a group called “Stop Farage At Thanet” hurls abuse at him. — economist

James Delingpole wonders who to vote for in the UK

My Local Candidate Deserves My Vote. Problem Is, He’s A Conservative.

My dilemma, I know, is one that will be shared by many on the Thatcherite right. We’re natural conservatives, at least with a small “c” if not a large one. Yet if we vote for this particular lot of Conservatives we are tacitly endorsing a party we have long since ceased to believe in. Our party – the Vichy Tories, as the great Gerald Warner calls them – has been hijacked by spineless, vapid, closet, discreetly Europhile social democrats, led by David Cameron, (dis-)ably encouraged by a damp rag of squishy ‘modernisers’ including Oliver Wetwin, Nick Boles, William Hague and many others too depressing to mention.

Dellers finds 6 reasons to vote for UKIP:

2. Nigel Farage. The very worst of all possible outcomes of this election is if Farage doesn’t win South Thanet. He has fought in the teeth of the most scabrous and unjustified Establishment hate campaign I think I’ve ever witnessed and thoroughly deserves to be in Westminster so that he can hold that Establishment to account.

3. The Manifesto. Never mind the debate over Libertarian UKIP versus Red UKIP. The manifesto’s pretty sound. (Independently costed too). You look at their policies and you think: “God, wouldn’t it just be amazing if a party like this ever got into power.” Well stop fantasising and put your money where your mouth is. Obviously you won’t get a UKIP majority this time (though to read by the rabid tone of some of the comments below my piece yesterday, some of you are sufficiently delusional to imagine otherwise) but “from tiny acorns…. etc”. In any case, see 4.

4. For UKIP this election isn’t necessarily about winning, but gaining sufficient share of the vote – second places are very important – to qualify for the enhanced funding which will put them in good stead to fight 2020 really hard.

He also does a cheeky personality profile of British voters.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (49 votes cast)
The UK Election , 8.4 out of 10 based on 49 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pt6vkt2

141 comments to The UK Election

  • #
    DoubtingDave

    Im on my way to the polling station in a few minutes to vote for UKIP, a life long labour voting socialist who’s had enough of the main parties taking from the poor and elderly to fund the lifestyles of the well off with taxes and levies on energy.The established parties corrupt democracy by putting the wishes of the party whips and the vested interest lobbyists ahead of the electorate that they are suppose to represent. UKIP are not just the only party for climate sceptics to vote for but also have policies to tackle the use of the party whips and rid us of the greencrap carpetbaggers that invect the corridors of westminster.

    450

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Maurice Newman wades in ….go Maurice….!!

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-a-unled-ruse-says-tony-abbotts-business-adviser-maurice-newman-20150507-ggwuzt.html

      “Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s chief business adviser.

      Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.”

      Yep…we knew that…nice to see its getting some airplay though …..

      452

      • #
        Bulldust

        The luvvies will be apoplectic.

        171

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        There are a few sceptics responding to the die hard lefties – they could do with some help from anyone who might be able to nail a few of them with scientific facts.

        80

        • #

          Steve… you might find that most sceptics don’t agree with MN about his UN conspiracy. you will also find that quite a few non-sceptics do. Both sides have their faults.

          111

          • #
            David-of-Cooyal in Oz

            I like Donna Laframboise’s “The delinquent teenager…” as a reference here. Do you have a better one?
            Cheers,
            Dave B

            70

          • #
            Bulldust

            I doubt there ius a UN conspiracy as such … just a lot of socialistically-minded politicians feathering their own nests and bolstering their own egos. You need a lot of CO2 tax dollars to fund all that.

            Agenda 21 on the other hand… that is one scary misanthropic document.

            251

            • #
              Dennis

              The leftists quickly identified the establishment for very good reasons as an opportunity for them to infiltrate that organisation and manipulate it to achieve their dream of one world government, or as former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown described it at a National Press Club luncheon, a world parliament with no sovereign borders (nations).

              A Labor Attorney General in the late 40s to early 50s gave a legal opinion to his UN comrades that every member nation should be encouraged to sign as many treaties with the UN as possible, treaties covering every possible scenario that a left leaning government could use to get around sovereign laws.

              I doubt that there will ever be one world government but I consider the UN to be a serious threat. Agenda 21 for example. The unelected comrades who have been able to gain considerable influence over member nations.

              When I heard that the ALP was planning to convert their carbon tax into an emissions trading scheme and join it with the Economic Union ETS I realised that the plan was another one world government step, and probably next was Australia joining the originally European Economic Union as a member. There are many warning signs including how many politicians from Commonwealth nations who have become UN employees. Former PM Gillard gifting $300 million to a UN education fund of which she is now a director.

              120

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Sorry…should have clarified ….. as usual the topic skews to claimate chnage, which is where most of the trench warfare action was….

            I’m never sure whether its worth wading in ( if at all ) , actually I’d be intersted to know peoples thoughts asto whether the smh has any real impact on public opinion, or put another way, are sheer number of CAGW bed wetters who post ( which are the majority of posters in this case ) a true represntation of where the joe publics head is at on CAGW?

            Its a double edged sword – if as a Sceptic you say nothing , you let the leftist loony machine run riot, however if the public has lready made up its mind, should a Sceptic bother? SMH seems to be a leftie rag anayway.

            I am always amazed at how fast the CAGW bed wetters & hand wringers start mocking and sneering at anyone who disagrees with their little cargo cult….

            151

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘…if as a Sceptic you say nothing , you let the leftist loony machine run riot, however if the public has already made up its mind, should a Sceptic bother? SMH seems to be a leftie rag anayway.’

              Fairfax is all pro AGW, the SMH and Age are notorious for telling fibs on climate change. They know their demographic.

              I gave up being a sceptic some time back, now I tell people I’m a sun worshiper and global cooling will be here in a few years. Stops them in their tracks.

              The public have more or less made up their mind, so like the Guardian or ABC the SMH is preaching to the converted.

              30

        • #
          Bulldust

          Facts? Facts?!?! Who brings facts to a Drum fight?

          Yes /sarc

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It pains me to have to say it, but I have to agree with Gee Aye on this point.

          The UN couldn’t plan and then organise their way out of a wet paper bag. They do not have the genes for a conspiracy.

          The organisation is a bureaucracy (see my comment at 6.1), and bureaucracies are adept at spotting an opportunity for their own advancement, and then arranging things so that the opportunity has a better chance of becoming the reality.

          When you think about it, it is a very low risk way of staging a revolution. You don’t need to get involved yourself, you just wait until somebody else is annoyed enough to stage one for you, and then take it over by swamping it in bureaucracy.

          60

          • #
            Bulldust

            Don’t need a conspiracy. Much like the whole CAGW self-feeding monster, the UN just gradually nibbles away at sovereign rights. One day you wake up, like the UK and realise how much you have lost. Hence UKIP. Probably too little too late.

            50

      • #
        Dennis

        A nice fit with Tony Abbott’s comment last year that he will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism

        160

  • #

    People are voting for UKIP because at least it represents a choice and is not afraid to raise controversial topics that are verboten. It’ll be lucky to get a few seats given the percentage of votes it’ll attract but a message is being sent.

    At the same time, whatever coalition lashup is put together (despite what they’re all saying), will I suspect not last too long. The SNP running the UK by proxy with their hand up Ed Milliband’s butt doesn’t look to be a long term engagement. More of a quickie.

    Pointman

    252

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Here is the best article. Gerald walker’s articles every Wednesday are pure brilliance:
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/06/forget-tactical-voting-the-strategic-vote-is-ukip/

    80

  • #
    DoubtingDave

    The Green party have just the one sitting MP Caroline Lucas who defends her seat at Brighton Pavilion, they have spent most of the campiagn focusing on two other target seats, Bristol currant home of Lewandowsky and Norwich, home of the CRU AND EAST ANGLIA UNI. Im on night shift in my signal box so will keep an eye on the more interesting results as they come in.(inbetween trains of course)(:

    230

    • #
      Matty

      Mmm ? Do you think there is any causal link in that correlation you identify Dave, between Green target electorates and centres of Warmist ideology ?

      71

  • #
    Richard

    I’m from the UK and it seems not many people are voting this year, probably because Russell Brand (quite a big celebrity over here) has ordered the public not to vote. I don’t blame them. Whoever we elect it’s always the same story: more privatization, more surveillance, more debt, and the economy continues its stupefying decline no matter what anyone does. But on the bright side, at least Tesco have started stocking cacao nibs.

    73

    • #
      Matty

      Didn’t I hear Brand was telling everyone to vote Labour in the end, after his late night assignation with the Labour Leader.
      He’s just too well orf for any self respecting Anarchist to take seriously though

      70

    • #
      Manfred

      Brand, devoid of character has of necessity adopted the theatrical persona constructed for him and epitomised in ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ (2008) and ‘Getting Him to the Greek’ (2010). What he spouts is unadulterated, mindless nihilism.

      On the other hand, it has been interesting to observe how much of the ‘institutional’ MSM in the UK have studiously avoided reporting anything about the progress of UKIP this election run-up This appears to have extended to the MSM down-under.
      After all, we wouldn’t want to promote independent push-back to the status quo would we?

      110

  • #
    Robert O

    I have an old friend, a retired solicitor from Edinburgh, who spent a few weeks on holiday in Australia recently having lived here previously in his school years. He made the comment that with conveyencing now there are 50 odd checks that have to be done, whereas when he commenced his practice there were only half a dozen. A lot were to do with the Scottish and European parliaments, but the point being the increase in officialdom for little gain which voters are becoming sick of everywhere.

    261

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      A lot of people don’t realise it, but bureaucracy is a form of government, as much as democracy, theocracy, technocracy, autocracy and monarchy are.

      The Brits are told that they live in some form of hybrid monarchic democracy, but they don’t. Monarchy, is rule by a single individual, selected by bloodline, who holds the position for life. Democracy, however, is the exact opposite of that, because in a true democracy, all decisions are made by a majority vote of the entire population. Democracy only works for smallish groups.

      Britain is actually run by the senior bureaucrats, who “advise” their respective Ministers regarding policy. The bureaucrats produce the legislation and regulations that the Minister will table in Parliament, and which the Government will then pass by majority, with perhaps a few minor modifications, and after a show debate. It will then be invariably signed into law by the Monarch, who can question, and “suggest” modifications, but cannot refuse outright, without causing a constitutional crisis.

      The television series, “Yes Minister”, is comedy. But being a comedy, does not exclude it from being a comedic documentary of the internal workings of Westminster.

      220

      • #
        ROM

        “Yes Minister” out of all TV shows was also reputedly watched by the highest percentage of bureaucrats in the Australian Capital Territory aka Canberra.

        70

        • #

          yeah weird… also the highest ABC viewer percentage.

          What channel was Yes Minister on again?

          60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I don’t know about TV. I never watch it, it only encourages the Producers to produce more, of whatever it is they produce.

            All of the episodes of both “Yes Minister”, and “Yes Prime Minister” are on Youtube.

            Having worked in Whitehall, and seen enough episodes to acknowledge the similarities, the only criticism I have, is that there would be dozens of career bureaucrats, all like Sir Humphrey, “advising” the Minister.

            130

      • #
        Robert O

        Apparently it was also watched by Mageret Thatcher who went to the BBC offices with a script. I liked the episode about the hospitals and the need for so many administrators and no patients.

        90

        • #
          Annie

          I like them all. We have the entire set. So true to life. The three main protagonists were all acted by brilliant actors.

          40

        • #
          Graeme No. 3

          Robert O:
          If you ever want confirmation look at the history of the West Footscray Hospital.
          Unlike the BBC version there were 72 staff, including 2 nurses and only 120 beds. No patients. One nurse lived just down the road was apparently trying to make the Guinness Book of Records for the shortest period between leaving worth and giving birth.

          Comment from a Doctor friend “God, I hope she doesn’t pup in the hospital, that’s the last place to give birth” .

          30

    • #
      Dennis

      Green and red tape is strangling businesses, including farm businesses.

      91

  • #
    James Strom

    In the polities derived from England the emergence of new parties, and decline of the old, has generally occurred over a long span, decades at least. During that span politics has continued to be dominated by the legacy parties, with results that don’t really reflect the citizenry. Such is the price of reform.

    70

  • #

    I live in a marginal constituency, where there is a choice between the Labour Party (whose current leader was the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change responsible for the Climate Change Act 2008) and the Liberal Democrats who had two Secretary of States. The first, Chris Huhne, went to prison for lying. All three have called people who question climate policy “Climate Deniers”.
    I may have still voted for the Lib Dem, until I read a communication this morning. He claimed credit for bringing the light rail system to the area. This was blatantly untrue. Back in 2008 I started blogging about a referendum in Manchester for an integrated transport system, with light rail and buses. It was be paid for by a congestion charge. They said at the time “Vote no and there will be no extensions to the Metro system”. 80% voted no. Six months later the Labour Government voted through the Metro extensions, just after the credit crunch hit and the deficit was ballooning. The Labour Party blamed it all on the bankers, whilst the severity was due to Gordon Brown’s deficit denial and his reconstruction of financial regulation in 1997.
    Both denigrate their opponents. One blames others when their policies go wrong, the other claim credits for things outside of their control. Both fail to take responsibility for their actions when things go wrong.

    230

  • #

    The BBC’s political correspondent Nick Robinson wrote yesterday of the election campaign.

    It’s been marked by the lack of confidence felt by our political leaders rooted in the overwhelming lack of trust felt by most voters.
    Why else would David Cameron promise to pass a law – not mentioned in his own manifesto – which would stop himself putting up taxes he’s long pledged not to raise?
    Why else would Ed Miliband resort to “carving in stone” pledges so broad and so general that it would be almost impossible to judge whether they’ve ever been broken?

    When Ed Miliband revealed his policy, Lucy Powell (vice-chair of the General Election campaign) said in a radio interview

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he’s carved them into stone means, you know, means that he will absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.

    190

    • #
      Matty

      With the Lib Dem’s manifesto , their Leader Nick Clegg was heard to say on radio that it was only those policies on the front page you could count on.

      90

    • #
      GMac

      That stone Ed alluded to wouldn’t happen to be made of chalk?

      80

  • #

    Don’t hold your breath for a breakthrough. I’ve been voting UKIP since 1997, when Jimmy Goldsmith of the Referendum Party, who was seen as the anti-establishment breakthrough candidate, was also standing in my constituency of Putney. I have just voted UKIP again. But the way things work in the UK system is that many third-party supporters will be so dismayed by the prospect of a Cameron second term, and many others by a Miliband term of any kind, that they will vote for the latter to keep out the former, or vice versa. The classic squeeze. UKIP will be lucky to get any seats at all, though it will likely poll more votes than the Lib Dems, who’ll get 30-40 seats, and the Greens, who’ll get a couple. Polls close in an hour.
    But I am not dismayed. A Miliband government might be a blessing in disguise, as he’s ruled out an EU referendum, which I fear at the moment that the UK, despite its scepticism, would likely endorse for continued membership. And whereas I THINK that AGW is a hoax, I KNOW that the EU is a tyranny I want to be rid of. So maybe we’ll get a better shot at both AGW and the EU in a few years, if we don’t show well now.

    161

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Moth, are you ruling out the possibility that the AGW Bewegung will soon force upon the UK an irreversible climate treaty enforced by the UN?

      110

  • #
    Mikky

    The BBC and like-minded have conducted a remorseless campaign of hate and ridicule against UKIP, including on polling day today (against the rules) a programme extolling the virtues of the EU, the only criticism of it was of insufficient socialism.

    No doubt this BBC campaign has INCREASED support for UKIP, but nevertheless they are still badly tainted by a number of “loony” oddballs, an understandable lack of basic organisational skills, and an under current of racism.

    I hope that a new right wing force emerges after the election (not so much a party, more a set of core ideas and values), to fight against fundamentalist lefties, liberals and greens, and to fight for wealth creation, a subject that no longer gets a mention amidst the barrage of electoral bribes.

    141

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I’m sorry, but I really can’t admire Delingpole. Anybody who had to wait for Delingpole to point the way on global warming should be thoroughly embarrassed. This was a scam from Day One and gentlemen in England now abed are now legally able to vote (as I write, the polls are still open), who weren’t even born when the scam became blindingly obvious.

    Thanks, James.

    Anyway, he’s French.

    122

    • #
      Eddie

      You must mean 18 years ago ? Most people hadn’t heard of the IPCC until after 2007, when the Bali 12 got together

      80

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        The man-made global warming nonsense is a lot more than eighteen years old (as, sadly, am I). I had no trouble seeing through it, right from the start. Apart from anything else, it began as just another scare story on a conveyor-belt of such stories, with the usual suspects being given beebyanka air-time to explain why this story, rather than whatever they had been emoting about the previous Wednesday, was the one that mattered.

        During one of the British elections in the Eighties, I heard a green party radio broadcast, which claimed that the optimum population of the UK was thirty million, roughly half of what it then was and subject, no doubt, to infinite revision. I didn’t need to wait about twenty years for the Miliband-soundalike Delingpole to tell me that the greens were dangerous lunatics.

        71

        • #

          The man-made global warming nonsense is a lot more than eighteen years old

          It says here in this 1883 newspaper that the much older fear of warming due to carbon dioxide once lead people to think that if they did not stop burning coal by the year 1900 all animal life would cease. However before Svante Arrhenius had even reached the age of 24 it was shown to be wrong and unburnt hydrocarbons were instead the real problem.
          http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/124795324?

          10

  • #
    Bill

    In Alberta, Canada, the election saw a shocking outcome with the socialist NDP now in power due to the anger of a small portion of the electorate. People in Alberta woke up screaming, “My god, what on earth have we done!?”

    140

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    So far, nothing has appeared about the UK election. Blackout, I guess.

    “… and voters get the choice of big or bigger government.
    The voters in Michigan apparently had to vote down (4 to 1) a road-spending bill because the Republican government wanted to tack on $700 million in other goodies.
    The Wall Street Journal finished with this bit: “Voters can elect Democrats if they want a tax increase. They elect Republicans to make hard spending choices and grow the economy.”

    130

  • #
    Barry

    Nice comment Jo. And Delingpole is once again right on the money. To summarise:

    1. The Tories have ceded British sovereignty to Europe;
    2. They are deceitfully stringing the electorate along with a vote on Europe ‘one day’. Even if they do this they will rig it to fail by making it all or nothing. The object is to have close economic ties and not cede sovereignty to the socialists in Europe;
    3. They have submitted to the Left’s agenda on ‘carbon dioxide’ presumably, like our own pretend conservatives, as part of their agenda to carefully manage the opinion polls just to serve their own electoral interests, and, in the process, they have punished the community with higher energy prices and done more harm than good to the environment;
    4. They have used mass immigration as a means to create the illusion of economic growth for the sole purpose of deceiving the electorate. Also, as Delingpole says, it is to raise capital to pay for past wasteful over-spending. They do this with no regard for the social and infrastructure problems they are dumping into our suburbs. Also, like our own pretend conservatives, they crap on their own citizens by encouraging foreigners to buy up residential real estate, which they use as an easy way to bring new money in and create the illusion of economic growth. Our government has also used secret free-trade deals to quickly flog off our assets to foreigners, simply to bring cash in fast and give the economy a temporary, unproductive boost just so that they, our politicians, can address their only concern – namely, staying in power after the next election. Similarly, Britain’s recent so-called economic growth was nothing more than a real estate boom funded by foreign money, largely Russians looking to escape uncertainty in their region.
    4. They are too cowardly to introduce selective immigration and so avoid importing violent people and extremists into the country. What Delingpole hasn’t mentioned is that because they have ceded British sovereignty to Europe they are unable to deal with the problems mass immigration is causing. Also, cowards that they are, they are unwilling to confront the Left on the issue. Once again, their only concern is to hang onto power for as long as they can, and be damned the people.

    It is no coincidence that any political party in the West that represents the interests of the people has been subjected to a withering assault from the Left.

    170

  • #
    Robert O

    Exit poles suggest 316 Tory and 239 Labor members and 10 Liberal which is just enough to get over the line. The Scottish Nationalists have about 50 at this stage.

    90

  • #
    Matty

    ‘Our very own’ Roger Tallbloke has nailed his colours to the mast and is standing as the UKIP Candidste for Pudsey in Yorkshire.
    Good Luck Roger !

    170

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    I voted UKIP. There is no chance of them getting elected here in YnYs Mon (Anglesey) where the front runners are a fat lesbian from Plaid Cymru and the ever moronic Albert Owen (Labour) who thinks Botticelli is a type of pasta.

    We sre all done for.

    110

  • #
    Eddie

    The Polls have now closed, about half an hour ago. I must have been the last one there, confused by having 11 to choose out of 12 candidates in the Parish Council & Local Council elections, being run simoultaneously with the General Election.

    Now we can look forward to hearing what little honesty we ever get from politicians about what they really think, now the people have spoken and they contemplate their futures.

    90

  • #
    Ruairi

    In a U.K. or other election,
    Almost all of the left-right selection,
    Will spout the same jargon,
    On destruction by ‘carbon’,
    As expected by political correction.

    251

  • #

    More and more I hear how the Australian voting system is supposedly wrong, and yet the more I hear of elections in other Western democracies, the more I think that Australia has actually got it right.

    Make voting compulsory.

    And most of all, First Past The Post sucks big time.

    It also looks like Scotland is the place likely to cost the Labour Party Government.

    Tony.

    180

    • #
      el gordo

      Unlike UK voters, Australians are influenced by the weather.

      ‘Weather can change voters minds.’

      Lisa Cox / SMH

      40

      • #
        GMac

        It depends on whether you are talking about the weather or whether someone has threatened to turn you into a wether!

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Whether the weather is cold,
          Or whether the weather is hot,
          Wethers weather the weather whatever the weather,
          Whether they like it, or not.

          70

      • #
        Annie

        Not true; opinion here in the UK is that good weather favours the Labour party. It was a pleasant, sunny spring day yesterday…perhaps the rout of Labour, Libdems, etc. might have been even more marked if it had been cold, wet and windy.

        10

    • #
      Robert O

      I tend to disagree Tony. Preferential voting has given us a lot of green Senators who get in on less than a quota aided with preference deals, e.g. Senator SHY with the help of the PUP. And Senaotr Lambie scraped in on the final recount of votes. Even former PM Rudd needed green preferences to get in and win over Dr. Glasson who topped the polls. First past the post means less manipulation by parties and vested interest.

      113

      • #

        Here’s where I was actually thinking about it for a while.

        As I understand, the UK Upper House, The Lords aren’t subject to the vote, so it’s only for their Lower House, so Preferential voting would work well there.

        Even in The Australian Senate, the only problematic point is for that last Senator’s position in each State. The main quotas are filled pretty easily.

        Tony.

        80

        • #
          MudCrab

          Yes, the problem with the current senate system isn’t filling from the top, but more what happens with the fifth and sixth spots.

          Senate works on a quota system which is total/n+1 where N is the number of senators. So to a ‘quota’ you need 1/7th of the primary vote.

          So at the top it works out fine. Party A gets 2.34 quotas and gets given 2 senators. Party B gets 2.1 quotas and gets 2 senators. However that leaves 2 senate spots to fill and with Party A now down to 0.34 and Party B down to 0.1 it all gets messy. So they start crossing out the people right at the bottom (ie the ones with 0.00001 of a quota) and start giving their votes via preferences.

          Now remember they do this from the bottom. So Party As 0.34 quota just sits there, slowly getting one or two extra votes… or at least in theory.

          In practice Party Z with 0.00001 quota gives it’s preference to Party H (which had 0.01 of a quota). That Party Y with 0.0001 of a quota gets crossed off and their votes goes to someone else minor… who then gets crossed off and their vote goes to someone minor… Suddenly Party H has picked up all these iddy biddy votes and have added up to 0.11 quotas. What does that mean? It means that Party B (who we remember had about 200 time more votes than Party H) is now crossed out of the running in favour of Party H.

          Now THAT is the problem. On the plus side, a lot of people decided to vote for ‘Not the Major Parties’ and that is where their vote went. However a lot of people also voted for a third Party B senator – a lot more in many cases than this Party H we are talking about – and under the system they get ignored.

          The other problem is that now we know how, the system is rather easy to scam. Look at it this way, there are what? 100 punters wanting to run for the senate. You pay your money, cut some deals with the 80 or so ‘non major party’ people. If you lose? Oh well. If you win, than you get a job for 6 years which basically involves you telling the media how much you hate the PM and a very nice pension at the end.

          Frankly? Better odds than lotto.

          Now I don’t as such wish to see the end of the minor senators… okay, my party t-shirt is back home in the cupboard, so maybe I do and are just saying that to be polite, but when more people vote for a 2nd or 3rd ‘major party senator’ and end up getting ignored, AND if that last ‘minor’ can turn out to be someone with only a couple of thousand primary, then there is something wrong with the system.

          What might be an idea is to increase the number of senators. Then with more spots up for grabs, the quota will be smaller and more chances that the break down of the primary votes will match the break down of the senators elected. Yeah, that will make the senate bigger, but seriously, if you are getting about 1% of the primary, then you probably don’t deserve to be in Canberra.

          70

          • #
            ianl8888


            What might be an idea is to increase the number of senators

            Apart from the sentence above, a very clear exposition of the current situation

            The problem with decreasing the quota by increasing the Senate numbers is that the number of MHR’s is constitutionally tied to the number of Senators for each State. Consequently a referendum is needed to change this nexus. Been tried and went down the tube …

            40

          • #
            Robert O

            The Senate voting system allows “scams” to occur: above / below line voting (the party decides 1,2,3, spots), backroom preference deals and so on. If there were to be one or several randomised lists of candidates as voting papers and the people ticked their SIX ONLY choices, no 1,2,3, the ballots could be scanned and those 6 with the most ticks are elected. Scan the ballots as your Tatts ticket and a result within hours. Not going to happen, too simple and too democratic and inexpensive I am afraid.

            40

          • #
            Peter C

            I don’t want to see an increase in the number of seats in either house.

            Two ways to fix your problem mudcrab;
            1. Vote below the line. Only a few people do it unfortunately. That way I decide how my vote is distributed. Likely my vote is ignored until the last because it is so hard to distribute.

            2. Party B could decide to preference party A instead of minor parties. It has happened. I think the Libs ditributed votes to Labour rather than the Greens in the last election.

            40

          • #
            Random Comment

            12 Senators for Tasmania being same as for NSW or Victoria really bugs me. Much better to tie number of senators to population or, even better, Gross State Product. That way, those who fill the coffers make the decisions.

            20

      • #
        GMac

        They both have their good and bad points,but first past the post does make you think about your vote,none of this “I’ll make em both pay” and put in a donkey vote,you can’t have an each-way bet,it has to be on the nose for a win.

        With preferential voting you are effectively giving someone else the use of your vote.
        I would prefer a first past the post vote,I know disasters can arise but that disaster can be removed at the next election,with preferential voting that disaster may very well be kept going for another term or two.

        62

      • #
        Dennis

        Crazy system when Tasmania has the same number of Senate seats as New South Wales and Queensland. And when seats are won on preference swapping deals but with less than 10 per cent of the primary vote. Senator Lambie of Tasmania about 6 per cent and Senator Ricky Muir of Victoria with about 2 per cent. Then they can do more deals and effectively block government legislation. The system is broken

        60

    • #
      Catamon

      Make voting compulsory.

      And most of all, First Past The Post sucks big time.

      Wow. It must be a cold day in Hades. I am in full agreement with Tony. :)

      Although if you think its bad in the UK, it works even less well in places like PNG. sitting member comes from a town, all money they can glom focused on that town, lots of other candidates from smaller towns to split the vote to buggery, and they win the seat with a paltry % vote.

      Preferential is not perfect, but i makes heaps more sense that FPP.

      It also looks like Scotland is the place likely to cost the Labour Party Government.

      What will be interesting in that is how permanent the shift is from Labor to SNP. Personally i suspect that the “new normal” needed to have Labor in Govt in the UK will be coalition or cooperation between Labor / SNP. The Scots have long memories. My mum was still dak on the Poms over the Highland Clearances and the treatment of the Cameron Highlanders in WWI. :(

      [ As I understand, the UK Upper House, The Lords aren’t subject to the vote, so it’s only for their Lower House ]

      You understand correctly. The Poms really need to do something about that and get their political system out of the 18th century. Be interesting to see if we get optional preferential above the line here for the Senate vote system and removal of group voting tickets. They have to do something to avoid the current bedspread sized Senate ballot papers and give voters easier control of their preferences.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        You’re surely not expected parties such as the Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog, the Party for a United Thanet, or We are The Reality Party to disband and stop cluttering the ballot papers?

        O/T but what happened to the Official Monster Raving Looney Party? Did they change their name to the Liberal Democrats?

        40

        • #
          Annie

          No…they still exist…just saw one on the box.

          One problem here is that the Libdems refused to the necessary update of constituency boundaries. Currently they very much favour Labour which makes the Conservative majority even more astonishing.

          30

  • #
    Ron Cook

    Back in 1957 my father made the desision to emigrate brought on by the 1956 Russian invasion of Hungary, the Suez crisis and a huge credit squeeze in the UK – rationing of some goods including petrol was still in force. We emigrated in 1958. I was 13. For the best part of 50 odd years Australia was a great country to live in -not “milk and honey”, but a great place to live, UNTILL our Labour got into power (Hawke/Keating), the rise of the Greens and a shift to the left of our Liberal (now a Labour Lite) party. Australia needs a UKIP, OZIP may be. We nearly had one but their leader was just a little too “red-necked” for the ozzies.

    Wishful thinking, but I do hope UK voters show some sense.

    R-Coo- K+

    170

    • #

      ??? As Labor goes Hawke/Keating were relatively competent and harmless. It was Whitlam who did the damage, Fraser who failed to undo it when he had the control of both Reps and Senate.
      Credit where it is due and blame likewise.

      And Tony,piss off with your government coercion. The question is always”would you hold a gun to this person’s head(and use it) to get him or her to do what you want?”

      61

      • #
        Dennis

        I agree that Hawke and Keating were much better than Whitlam (Labor governments) but Rudd and Gillard and Rudd made Whitlam look good.

        But remember that when Fraser was sitting on his hands trying not to rock the electoral boat Treasurer Howard and permanent head of Treasury Stone produced a plan for major economic reforms, after being assessed by him the plan was called the (Professor of Economics) Campbell Report. Hawke and Keating adopted the plan and commenced legislation with full Coalition cooperation around 1985. New Zealand (Lange Labour) adopted the plan in full including the GST but here Labor were stopped from progressing to the final stages by their union masters. Treasurer Keating told ABC TV angrily that the wheels had dropped off the (economic) cart. The Howard government completed the reform process and established the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority to monitor banking and finance sector. The economic reforms coupled to zero federal public debt and budgets in surplus for years, all but one financial year (East Timor Deployment) were what provided the firewall for Australia during the northern hemisphere financial crisis.

        70

  • #
    Matty

    The Exit Polls are predicting the Tories being just 9 seats short of an absolute majority. That would be an awful lot stronger than before.
    Exit Polls are a bit like this Climate scare thing. When the numbers actually come in no one can believe how they could have been so wrong.

    81

  • #
    pat

    while the results become clearer, some news from closer to home:

    8 May: 9News: AAP: Deal expected on renewable energy target
    A political impasse over Australia’s renewable energy target could be broken within hours, with the federal government and Labor expected to agree on a compromise.
    The two parties will hold a long-awaited meeting in Melbourne on Friday when the coalition is expected to concede ground…
    Until Thursday it was reluctant to go higher than a 32,000GWh target. But cabinet is believed to have authorised Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane to go to 33,000GWh.
    Labor leader Bill Shorten has indicated the opposition would accept that figure…
    http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/05/08/06/46/government-to-seek-ret-deal-with-labor

    7 May: NZ Herald: Brian Fallow: Government vague on climate targets
    NZ stance at odds with EU commitment.
    A consultation document on New Zealand’s post-2020 climate target released by the Government yesterday is silent on what sort of numbers it has in mind but is clear that any commitment will be highly conditional and provisional…
    The current target is to reduce emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and a “more ambitious” target is expected beyond that. Current emissions are about 21 per cent above 1990 levels…
    New Zealand’s per capita emissions are about 17 tonnes.
    The Government attributes this high level of per capita emissions to the unusually high proportion – nearly half – generated by ruminant livestock…
    Some indicative modelling, based on a carbon price of $50 a tonne (about eight times its current level), suggests a target of 10 per cent below 1990 levels would reduce household incomes by $1300 or 1.5 per cent by 2027 compared with taking no target…
    Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry criticises the absence of any discussion of the costs of climate change itself…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11445014

    71

    • #

      pat mentions this: my bolding()

      Until Thursday it was reluctant to go higher than a 32,000GWh target. But cabinet is believed to have authorised Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane to go to 33,000GWh.

      So then, the difference is 1,000GWh.

      You know, the same amount actually delivered by Bayswater in, umm ….. 16 days!!!

      Tony.

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        Or conversely, to close 1.5 Bayswater power stations. It is all a bit fatuous when the natural output of CO2 and CH4 from animals and humans is vastly greater and 98% of the CO2 in Australia comes from overseas. This is reminiscent of the film Jabberwocky where the cooper chops off his own foot as a cunning business plan to increase his begging capacity. Crippling Australian industry is an anarchist Green plan for political power as is uninvited mass migration of Centrelink seekers.

        110

      • #

        (1000GWh)…..the same amount actually delivered by Bayswater in, umm ….. 16 days!!!

        Not just that, but

        At a cost of $30 Million.

        Bayswater will sell that electricity to the retailers at $30/MWh, hence that total of $30 Million.

        Look, I know this is off topic, but how I just love harpooning Renewable Energy for the costly failure it really is, failing on just so many fronts.

        Now, keep those two figures in mind, (1000GWh and $30 Million) and watch the Maths on this.

        So, what sort of renewable would you get that will deliver that same 1000GWh of power, and here I’ll use the method of choice these days, a wind farm plant.

        Extrapolating back from that total, at the average Capacity Factor of 30%, that gives us a Nameplate of 380MW.

        Now, there’s only one plant of that size or larger here in Oz, Macarthur which is 420MW, so realistically it will be two or even three of these plants, and even then, these are fairly large scale plants, but let’s just work on that total of 380MW, which will be around 152 of those huge towers.

        A plant of this scale will cost around $1.4 Billion, and if it is broken down in size to two or three plants, then even more than this.

        So, to deliver the same amount of power, it will cost $1.4 Billion, compared to Bayswater’s delivery cost of $30 Million, so 47 times the cost.

        The wind plant will deliver that power in ONE YEAR, compared to Bayswater’s 16 days.

        To generate that power at Bayswater will see the emission of just under one million tons of CO2.

        So, to abate that (using the larger figure here) one million tons of CO2 will cost an extra $1.37 Billion, hence an abatement cost of $1,370 per ton of CO2.

        And now keep in mind that this target date is 2020. Those ADDED 1000GWh will need to be in planning right now for them to actually be delivering power by 2020, not a political added extra thought bubble like this is.

        This is a joke. 16 days compared to a year, and at 47 times the cost.

        Oh yes, wind power really is worthwhile all right. (/sarc)

        Tony.

        130

        • #
          TdeF

          Not understanding. “there’s only one plant of that size or larger here in Oz, Macarthur which is 420MW”. Hazelwood in Victoria is 1600MW and burns wet brown coal, so twice the CO2 for the same power. 25% of Victoria’s power and 5% of the National power generation.

          50

        • #
          Matty

          No plans to convert Bayswater to biomass then, like Drax converted 3 of its 660 MW units, & clearfell the bush to feed it ?

          40

        • #
          Random Comment

          Sorry Tony. Excuse my ignorance, I am not quite following the maths. I assume the $1.4Bn cost for a wind power plant to produce 1000GWh includes 100% of capital costs plus 1 year operating costs? Should the capital costs be amortised over the effective operating life? Also, how do you get to 380MW as the amount of wind power Nameplate required?

          00

          • #

            Also, how do you get to 380MW as the amount of wind power Nameplate required?

            The standard industry formula for power delivery is:

            Delivered Power = NP X 24 X 365.25 X CF

            Where NP is Nameplate Capacity, 24 hours in a day, 365.25 days in a year, (the extra .25 for leap year) and CF is Capacity Factor.

            So if the delivered power is 1000GWh, which is 1,000,000 MWh and with the CF at the average 30%, then transposition of formula gives a result of 380MW for the Nameplate.

            Hope this explains it for you.

            And that cost is just for the original capital cost.

            Tony.

            10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      If ever proof was needed that both our major parties are selected from Yes Minister Numbskulls this is it.
      1. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is causing much warming at all.
      2. Even if there was, there is very little evidence that wind turbines and PV panels reduce CO2 emissions, and just as much evidence that they raise emissions.
      3. There is no doubt that wind turbines and PV panels raise the cost of electricity.

      Yet our major parties run round, some with heads still attached, braying that they are reducing the amount of CO2 emitted and lowering the cost of electricity.

      I feel that an immediate life time ban on anybody who has done politics, law or economics at University should be enacted to protect the ordinary citizens.

      71

  • #
    Dipole

    For a very accurate and funny pen sketch of the party followers in the UK (but it applies to all western democracies)see http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/06/general-election-2015-what-your-voting-choice-says-about-you/

    60

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/topic, but on climate change /shrug:

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-a-unled-ruse-says-tony-abbotts-business-adviser-maurice-newman-20150507-ggwuzt.html

    The luvvies will be all a tither because some of Maurice Newman’s best quotes have been gathered up dutifully by the SMH.

    62

    • #
      Bulldust

      Oops I see this was threadjacked on number 1 already :)

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        The UK seems to lack somebody of Maurice Newman’s intellectual integrity, he is without doubt well ahead of his time.

        61

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal in Oz

        I nearly did the same…
        And I’m delighted. Maurice has spectacularly broken through the SMH editorial pro-warmist barrier to get a really eye catching headline. Love it.

        How can we help him?

        Cheers,
        Dave B

        51

        • #
          el gordo

          Sadly there is nothing more to say because political pragmatism has returned to Canberra.

          ‘Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Mr Newman’s position was not a view “I have or would express”.

          Maurice Newman’s position on global cooling is perfectly measured, yet the left think its parody. We must continue to bide our time until there is a sharp drop in temperatures, then he will be vindicated.

          61

          • #
            Bulldust

            Don’t worry .. the UN will have a taxable fix for global cooling too.

            50

            • #
              el gordo

              They might, the bureaucrats will blame the scientists, who will in turn blame the media for hyping. Politicians throughout the western world will blame all of the above.

              40

  • #
    Bulldust

    Excellent argument for free speech on The Drum by Dr Natasha Moore:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/moore-silence-isnt-golden-when-it-comes-to-free-speech/6454368

    I expect The Drum regulars will be out in force to call her a neocon denier, especially given her working for the Centre for Public Christianity. Let’s see how many of the feral luvvies attack with ad homs.

    61

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I saw one quote that watching “Q&A” was like watching a socialist party meeting…..

      ouch…

      50

  • #
    pat

    6 May: Vice: Writers, Scientists, and Climate Experts Discuss How to Save the World from Climate Change
    #1: HAVE FEWER KIDS
    by Alan Weisman, writer
    …Overpopulation isn’t just another environmental problem: It’s the one that underlies all others. Without so many humans using so much more stuff with each new generation, expelling waste and CO2 that don’t go away, there wouldn’t even be environmental problems—nor an Anthropocene.
    Fortunately, it’s the easiest (and cheapest) problem to solve, both technically and socially—and without resorting to anything so drastic as China’s reviled one-child policy. And doing so will bring unexpected economic dividends, ease injustice, and counter climate change faster than anything else we know…
    (Alan Weisman is the author of The World Without Us and Countdown)
    #3 MAKE PEOPLE BETTER
    Ken Caldeira, climate scientist
    #4 FREE THE ENERGY MARKET
    Naomi Oreskes, climate historian
    Instating a carbon tax, eliminating subsidies, and eliminating environmental exemptions: These measures alone would go a long way toward creating a true free market that would enable renewables to compete on more equal footing.
    #5 EMBRACE GEOENGINEERING
    David Keith, climate-policy expert.
    David Keith is a professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard…
    ETC
    http://www.vice.com/read/sos-0000653-v22n5

    41

  • #
    doubtingdave

    best news of the night so far , Ed Davey has lost his seat

    90

  • #
    cheshirered

    Ed Davey, the UK’s Climate Hysterics Minister, has been beaten. No jolly trip to Paris on the taxpayers ticket for Ed.

    101

  • #
    pat

    8 May: Guardian: Martin Kettle: Labour’s election strategy utterly failed, and it has to admit as much
    Many on the left were sanguine and self-deceived about this campaign. They must now confront the question of responsibility
    (from Wikipedia: Martin James Kettle is a British journalist and author. The son of two prominent communist activists Arnold Kettle and Margot Kettle, Martin Kettle was educated at Leeds Modern School and Balliol College, Oxford University)
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/labour-election-strategy-failed

    thanx to Tony for the coal/renewables comparisons.

    if only the MSM would give Tony a weekly column to break down the real costs to Australians of the CAGW folly.

    41

  • #
    pat

    so, even tho Labor wanted a higher figure, including their latest target of 33,500 GWh, ABC’s Radio Australia spin 33,000 as a total win for Labor:

    8 May: Radio Australia: Renewable Energy Target: Cabinet agrees to cut target to Labor’s preferred figure
    By political reporter Johanna Nicholson
    Labor recently said it would back a cut to 33,000 GWh after previously arguing for significantly higher figures.
    The Coalition has been holding out for a lower number but the ABC understands Cabinet last night gave the Industry and Environment Ministers approval to agree to Labor’s figure.
    “It does look that finally Tony Abbott has made some shift, after taking this industry right to the edge,” Labor’s Environment spokesman Mark Butler told ABC Radio National…
    But Mr Butler said Labor would look to increase the target if elected.
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2015-05-08/renewable-energy-target-cabinet-agrees-to-cut-target-to-labors-preferred-figure/1445122

    similarly, Fairfax’s Lisa begins her headline with “Government”, but gives not a single quote to anyone on the Govt side or anyone on the business side who has objections to the RET:

    7 May: SMH: Lisa Cox: Government and Labor to meet on renewable energy target
    Photo Caption: Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler
    Last month, renewables peak body the Clean Energy Council put forward a compromise figure of 33,500 which Labor said it would accept, but the government rejected…
    If a deal at 33,000 is reached it will not please everyone in the industry.
    The Australian Solar Council says such a figure would advantage the wind industry, which was ready to immediately begin new projects…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-and-labor-to-meet-on-renewable-energy-target-20150507-ggwm7o.html

    31

  • #

    How sweet was this lead in on the lunch time program The World Today on the ABC.

    Labour smashed.

    Still, ever the man to see a silver lining, Bill Shorten is overjoyed.

    Ed Miliband has supplanted him as the worst Leader of a Labour (Labor) Party in the World.

    Thank you Scotland.

    Tony.

    90

    • #
      ianl8888

      It does seems as if Cameron is back in

      Now let’s see him keep his promise about a referendum on continuing EU membership for the UK

      Ho, ho, ho – of course he will

      40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Seems to me that with Cameron in power, things get worse – but more slowly than Labor.

      If Labor were in power, it would be a runaway train….off a cliff…..look at what the last UK Socialist ( Gillard ) did here….yeesh…. ( Yes I know shes technically from Wales….)

      60

      • #
        Bulldust

        Gillard was soft compared to Doug Cameron, who was UK born BTW.

        40

        • #
          Andrew

          Gillard made “WatchMaTeeee” look like a Libertarian

          20

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            I hope we never see such a hopeless era of Australian politics again.

            http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/labor-still-running-at-record-low/story-e6frf7jo-1226083059917

            Gillard was utterly out of her depth. An unrepentant narcissist who completely abandoned labour history and labour policy to share power with the party who are the very opposite of Australian working values.

            Gillard managed to effortlessly combine holding the highest office in the land with seemingly being one of the most set upon victims of male oppression in recent history. Her ability to switch from uncompromising dictator and champion of female strength and intellectualism, to a whimpering, whipping post was seamless. It was as unconvincing as it was embarrassing.

            She singly handededly set back the efforts of women to seek equality and achievement in public and private life by at least a generation. It seems unlikely any Australian political party will flirt with the notion of another female PM for some time.

            Having said that I will demonstrate some cognitive dissonance of my own by predicting that Tanya Plibersek will lead Labour to the next election. But all it will do is show Labour that if they wanted a female leader, they should have chosen someone competent in the first place, in my opinion Tanya was a vastly better option.

            20

            • #
              JLC of Perth

              I agree with everything except the last sentence. Plibersek is another Gillard: ambitious, narcissistic, without principles, will say or do anything for personal advantage. Look at her recent comments about binding ALP votes for gay marriage, and the way she timed them for Shorten’s absence. There was nothing sincere about it: it was a strategic career move. She would be a disastrous prime minister.

              50

            • #
              JLC

              On second thought, it was only the last bit of the last sentence that I disagree with. I agree with the rest of it.

              20

  • #
    pat

    how special. Pope Francis’s well-premature Holy Year/Jubilee/Year of Mercy will begin in December. perhaps he will announce it at the UN Climate Convention in Paris?

    7 May: WaPo: Michael E. Miller: Pope Francis will send ‘missionaries of mercy’ to absolve women of abortion ‘sin’
    On Tuesday, Archbishop Fisichella was back in the news, but this time firmly in line with his boss. During a news conference at the Vatican, Fisichella announced that Pope Francis would be empowering his priests to pardon women for having abortions. Moreover, the Vatican would be sending these “missionaries of mercy” all across the world as part of the Pope’s Jubilee, or ***Holy Year, of Mercy, which begins in December.
    Francis has spoken sharply about abortion, calling it “a sin against God.” But his year of mercy is aimed at bringing back estranged Catholics by emphasizing outreach, even for those who have committed grave sins in the eyes of the church…
    The announcement is in line with a number of controversial moves from the Argentine pope. Since his election in 2013, Francis has pushed the church to become more tolerant. He reportedly met with a transgender man at the Vatican, seemed to endorse family planning by saying Catholics don’t need to breed “like rabbits,” indicated that divorced individuals could take communion, and has met with victims of clergy sex abuse.
    Most shocking of all, he expressed an openness towards embracing gays and lesbians…
    The pope’s sometimes seemingly off-the-cuff statements have made him the most popular pontiff in a generation…
    ***Normally, Holy Years occur once every quarter century. The last one was in 2000 under Pope John Paul II. In March, however, Pope Francis announced plans to hold a special jubilee ten years early. It is only the third special jubilee in church history…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/07/pope-francis-will-send-missionaries-of-mercy-to-absolve-women-of-abortion-sin/

    MSM reported in January that Pope Francis was ‘truly sorry’ for offending large Catholic families by saying that there was no need to breed ‘like rabbits’, but it would seem he is getting closer to the CAGW depopulation advocates by the day.

    according to the following, it would seem depopulation is only for the poor! all the more reason for the developing world to walk away from the entire CAGW process:

    2 May: Sacramento Bee: Markos Kounalakis: How sex could save Japan
    (Markos Kounalakis is a research fellow at Central European University and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.)
    Survival was the topic of Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s summit last week with President Barack Obama…
    For the past decade, Japan has seen its population dropping steadily. This is a result not only of a drop in birth rate, but also a lack of fresh blood in the form of immigrants…
    By contrast, the United States is a young and dynamic country. The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1950 and may have recently added another 5 million immigrants to census reports with the stroke of Obama’s executive-order pen. But the riches of youth and vigor are not a given for most post-industrialized nations in the world. In fact, the United States is both an exception and an aberration.
    Social scientists have long identified a demographic trend where the richer and more educated a nation becomes, the lower its fertility rate…
    After the devastation of both world wars, France had an official policy encouraging repopulation, continued today…
    Australia, too, had its own policy under the “populate or perish” moniker…
    Could the European continent’s most successful economy (Germany) be in even better shape if it could pump out people the way it cranks out cars? Perhaps. A dark history of Nazi-era eugenics, however, makes the topic radioactive and the country’s demographic challenge is popularly referred to in economic euphemism…
    And yet, not every rise in pregnancy corresponds to increased prosperity. Too often, more people simply means more mouths to feed. Pope Francis has praised large families, but also encouraged adherents of his faith to use church-approved natural methods of birth control and even startled some faithful by stating that Catholics need not breed “like rabbits.”…
    Global overpopulation will continue to put stress on global resources.
    ***Today, a combination of unevenly distributed population and climate change constitute the most serious threat to human existence in our species’ history…
    But more sex in Japan couldn’t hurt. If our ally to the east continues to get smaller and older, sunset could come shockingly soon in the Land of the Rising Sun.
    http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article20042817.html

    41

  • #
    • #
      el gordo

      ‘While it is still early days – and unclear how severe the El Nino will be – weather could soon become a problem for Tony Abbott…’

      What a laff.

      41

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Well they confidently said it was a 50/50 last year. We get such great value from our tax dollars with these guys don’t we?

      20

  • #

    Somebody asked me yesterday about who I thought would win the UK elections. I prioritised them as: Conservative Socialists; over the Labour Socialists; over the Lib-Dem Socialists.

    60

  • #
    pat

    8 May: Daily Mail: ED ADMITS DEFEAT: Tories now a whisker away from an absolute majority as Miliband and Clegg face political extinction. But Scotland votes for a very different future in SNP near clean-sweep
    6am forecast: Tories 325 (up 23 on 2010), Labour 232 (down 24), SNP 56 (up 50), Lib Dem 12 (down 44), Ukip 1
    By Matt Chorley, Political Editor and Tom McTague
    forecast suggesting he will win 325 seats – exactly half of the Commons. With Sinn Fein not taking their seats and the Speaker not voting, it effectively gives the Tories a majority…
    Ukip leader Nigel Farage faces the battle of his life to win his seat in South Thanet. Without it, he has vowed to quit as party leader raising doubts about the future of Ukip as a political force. Douglas Carswell, who defected to Ukip from the Tories last year, held Clacton…
    But a Tory source said it was still too tight to call in South Thanet (Farage), while Labour’s candidate Will Scobie was also reluctant to make predictions…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3072601/Election-results-2015-LIVE-General-election-exit-poll-suggests-Conservatives-victory.html

    don’t know if the above figures will hold up, but UKIP not able to do well in first past the post system.

    41

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    There will be a great howling, a howling and gnashing of teeth. Not just in the UK and the BBC, here in the ABC. Not a single Green.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      No, they kept Brighton Pavilon, which they won last time. They came no-where in the 2 Norfolk seats (home of East Anglia Uni and Hadley Climate Institute). Haven’t checked all 4 Bristol seats for the Lewandowski effect, but at least 2 lots of voters were showing allergy to greens.

      Overall their vote seems to have shrunk.

      70

    • #
      Annie

      No…nutty Brighton just went nuttier. You’d have thought the Greens were sweeping the country by the attention given to them on the BBC ‘Today’ programme.

      The BBC are just as potty about the Greens as the ABC where we have seen very much too much of Christine Milne in proportion to her actual importance numbers wise.

      40

  • #
    Bertram Felden

    The fact that 45% OF Scots effectively voted for independence means that 55% – a significant majority – did not . Almost to a point the same result as the referendum.

    40

  • #
    DonS

    Hi Jo

    Off topic but I just heard that the University of Western Australia has cancelled its participation in the Bjorn Lomborg economic modelling institute that has had the warmists up in arms for the last few weeks. Gutless wonders. If they can not accommodate a universality of views should they even call themselves a university any more?

    You must be proud to have once been a student of UWA. As someone who went to the university (Macquarie) that gave Tim Flannery a chair I too know your pain. Oh, the shame.

    71

  • #
    pat

    the latest update from the Daily Mail link posted earlier:

    A 7am results forecast suggests the Tories will win 329 seats – more than half of the Commons. With Sinn Fein not taking their seats and the Speaker not voting, it would effectively give the Tories a majority of around seven…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3072601/Election-results-2015-LIVE-General-election-exit-poll-suggests-Conservatives-victory.html

    51

  • #
    ianl8888

    O/T, but as I expected:

    Lomborg gone from UWA – university cancels his contract after howling from the smarty leftoids

    The war is lost (Abbott’s pension cave-in does him in as well)

    [Maybe that's better for publication] [Indeed] Fly

    20

  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    Maybe the government could employ Lomborg directly, in some official capacity?

    The leftoids will be cheering from the rafters and the new Greens leader is not very bright.

    Greens Leader Richard Di Natale said the deal would mean fewer jobs, less clean energy and more pollution from coal.

    “Tony Abbott has attacked renewable energy because he thinks coal is good for humanity. It isn’t,” he said.

    “This deal means more coal. More coal means less jobs in clean energy, more pollution, more cancer and more lung disease.”

    The Mercury

    30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    latest BBC breaking news:

    Conservatives expected to win 331 seats.

    10

  • #
    pat

    Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg & Ed Miliband have all resigned their positions as leaders of their parties.

    30

    • #
      DavidH

      Well done Nigel Farage. Put it all on the line … but failed; stands by his promise to resign if not elected. Hopefully the next leader of the only UK party with clear climate realist policy will take the party on to bigger and even better things than Nigel has done.

      40

    • #
      Graeme No. 3

      2 out of 3 are good news.

      00

  • #
    C.J.Richards

    Tories have a working majority by 4 seats with no other party coming close & just 4 seats still to declare.

    The alternative parties have been all but wiped out.

    All the talk of new politics and rise of alternative parties has been politico & media spin.

    The Scottish Nationalists are the new 3rd force in British politics.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11584325/full-results-map-uk-2015.html

    40

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “IPCC climate models being used in UK election opinion polls”

    ◾An inquiry is to be held into the mismatch between opinion polls during the campaign and the actual result.

    The result for the UK election has come as a shock to those trying to predict the outcome. The numbers just do not add up said one pollster.
    Well stop asking Gavin Schmidt to do the mathematics duh !!

    30

  • #
    Roger

    UKIP received far more votes than the combined total of votes for the Liberal Democrats and the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) yet ended up with just 1 Member of Parliament compared with the LD & SNP total of some 63 MPs.

    As the recipient of the 3rd largest number of votes in the UK election they end up with just 1 seat out of 630 !

    Here in the UK we clearly have an electoral system which is overdue for an overhaul to allow the voice of some 15 % of voters to be heard rather than drowned out 63 to 1 by just 12%.

    30

    • #
      Roger

      I forgot to mention that UKIP is the only UK political party that opposes the mad scramble to develop wind and solar power and is somewhat sceptical about IPCC claims and predictions.

      30