Conservatism in the UK
Guess who said this?:
We have a vision of a different America. It is a vision of an America in which our cars run on electricity; high speed trains whisk us from North to South in less time than it takes to get across greater New York; we produce much more but use much less energy to do it; our power suppliers no longer depend to any great extent on imported oil and gas; our homes require less energy, produce far more of their own energy and are heated by gas we produce from our own agricultural and domestic waste.
It is a vision of a United States which leads the world in new green technologies. Secured against interruptions of supply and volatile prices, our industry can plan for growth. Our national security is guaranteed, regardless of decisions by volatile governments elsewhere to close pipelines or restrict supply. It is a decentralized vision rather than one in which all decisions about our energy future are vested in the government. Through it we play our full part in protecting our planet against the effects of man-made climate change.
Well, nobody said it. Instead I changed the words “Britain” and “centralised” to “America” and “centralized.” But it comes from the UK Conservative Party’s low-carbon economy white paper.
I mention this because David Brooks has a pretty good column urging Republicans to learn from David Cameron that, disappointingly, doesn’t mention anything about climate and energy issues. But if you want to make the point that at the moment European center-right parties are both much more politically successful than the GOP and also much more substantively sensible, then climate and energy is probably the topic where you’ll find the biggest contrast. After all, it’s not just that the Conservatives’ climate and energy issues page looks very different from the Republican one—the Republicans don’t have one at all.
30 Responses to “Conservatism in the UK”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Re “After all, it’s not just that the Conservatives’ climate and energy issues page looks very different from the Republican one—the Republicans don’t have one at all. ”
———-
Er.. actually the Republicans do have a policy. It is to kill 4500+ US soldiers grabbing oil deposits so that Big Oil’s whores like Dick Cheney can get $45 Million with no corporate experience whatsoever and Big Oil’s CEOs can get $400 Million from their stock options.
And if their thieving overseas provokes a Sept 11 attack that kills 3000 Americans, they can simply have the drunk and bankrupt businessman they installed as President go on TV and lie to the country. Tell us 19 people from the far side of the world committed suicide because they “hate our freedoms”
Then you bribe a bunch of con men in Southern Megachurchs to preach that it’s the Lord’s Will and we must fight the godless legions of Islamofascists.
Big Oil can get away with the above because they know every single Democratic Member of Congress is too cowardly to speak out and say what’s going on.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
My God…you people are so fundamentally clueless about basic, simple life. You’d honestly be great fodder for a few laughs over drinks with friends if it weren’t for the fact that you’re quite dangerous. Because of naive unicorns like you people, I’m going to have to worry for my family’s safety and my children’s future. I truly appreciate it.
Wait…let me guess…you’re first reaction is to say something such as, “Fuck You”, or “Who gives a fuck about you?” I think you truly need to step back, look in the proverbial mirror, and ask yourself who the angry people actually are.
Resolve your issues with your parents and then come back and speak with us.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Understanding science is not just alien to wingnuts, but viewed as something pathological.
‘If Jesus didn’t want us to warn the planet with carbon, he would have made us cold-blooded. And go work out your problems with your parents. Also.’
October 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Because of naive unicorns like you people, I’m going to have to worry for my family’s safety and my children’s future.
We’re already worried about your children’s safety, troll.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I really think this is a serious misinterpretation of what’s going on in UK politics. Cameron 2009 seems to me an eery doppelganger of George W Bush 1999, right down to the strange unwillingness of liberals to criticize them. Both rose to popularity by proposing big cuts in the inheritance tax, paid for not by cutting anything concrete, but by making sure your money doesn’t go to those people. Bush in ‘99 also proposed to deal with climate change, and received rapturous press for doing so. Plus the lies about military readiness, compassionate conservatism, etc. etc.
And after lots of posts documenting the consequences of neo-Hooverism in the US, I’m not sure why we’re supposed to cheer the Tory version of it, just because they’re ahead in the polls. On the economic crisis, Cameron and the Tories (and Brooks) flunked, badly: they convinced themselves, and a proportion of the UK public, that the solution to a severe recession was austerity, and tightening belts, showing either horrible political ethics or horrible policy judgment.
True, Tories haven’t proposed abolishing the NHS, though their commitment to funding it is unknown. But that seems pretty weak tea to account for the kid-gloves treatment Cameron and the Tories are getting from the press, and and even from the UK left.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Wait…let me guess…you’re first reaction is to say something such as
Actually, my first reaction was “what the eff are you talking about?!” That’s not rhetorical either — state why you disagree and enlighten us with your wisdom … I’m honestly curious, considering your strong negative reaction to the successes of overseas conservatives.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
In the happy unicorn filled fantasy land where wind and solar somehow provide all the power we need, maybe. Back here in the real world, where the environmentalists – all on the left – oppose nuclear power, we’re left with shivering in the dark, or using fossil fuels until we run out, and then having the country realize that there are no unicorns.
Get back to the rest of us after you deliver a few clues to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club (et. al.)
In the meantime, spare us the sanctimony.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Back here in the real world, where the environmentalists – all on the left – oppose nuclear power
And in the world of actual politics, it looks exceedingly likely that nuclear power will be a big part of whatever cap and trade legislation is passed.
So you’d better work on finding a new reason to oppose it. I’m sure you’re up to the challenge.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Probably a wee bit teed off that you can’t supress my speech, now aren’t you?
Be honest.
Don’t worry…Mark Lloyd is all over that one. As if it’ll ever work.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
“So you’d better work on finding a new reason to oppose it. I’m sure you’re up to the challenge.”
No, James Robertson won’t even need to find a new reason to oppose it. He’s been tilting at straw liberals for years, and will surely continue doing so regardless of what happens in the real world.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
No, pointing at laughing at you works just fine for me.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
When the fossil fuel industry starts funding astro-turf campaigns about the dangers of nuclear power, is there even the slightest chance James Robertson will avoid repeating their talking points?
Even the slightest?
Of course not. What am I saying?
October 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Nuclear is not an alternative to developing and expanding renewable forms of energy.
God save the queen!
October 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Back here in the real world, where the environmentalists – all on the left – oppose nuclear power
Keep beating that strawman, J-Rob.
To do nuclear power properly — i.e. to get microscopic tolerances on a grand scale — requires a French-style public investment. Which, if I’m not mistaken, is the kind of “government” that makes you crap out your bowels and hide in the basement of your suburban compound.
In the meantime, spare us the dick-waving. I’m sure your grandkids will appreciate your steadfastness, though.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
It really is a shame. Euro-Conservatism would play so well here.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
The Mark Lloyd reference is nice touch by the troll. Here we have someone who doesn’t understand the difference between public and private property, recites talking points from propaganda outlets in the name of free speech, and slanders people who have actually spent their careers advocating for the protection of free speech and press.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Probably, the problem is that our local conservatives have decided that the solution to our problems is to claim they don’t exist.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I’ve been in favor of nuclear power since the 70’s, joe. I watched the enviro left oppose it, and effectively lobby for more pollution (in the form of more coal plants). In the absence of nuke power, sure, I want lots of coal plants – at least we have coal reserves here in the US.
If the enviros ever locate a clue and allow us to build nuke plants, I’ll happily watch coal plants retired – I’m no more a fan of their emissions than you are (I just don’t worry about the Co2 part of it).
So again – when you guys convince your fraternal allies on the left to stop standing athwart history yelling stop, let the rest of us know.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I’m sure you have, just as I am sure that you will perform an about-face, and start frothing about the Democrats’ dangerous nuclear plans the moment the fossil fuel industry creates a fake-NIMBY front group.
OK. The last three Democratic presidential candidates have all advocated for the expansion of nuclear power.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Better repeat that talking about again, James.
Window’s closing! Window’s closing!
October 16th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Joe,
Not so much, no. While I don’t think peak oil (or coal, etc) is that close, there is a limit to those resources, and burning them does put pollution in the air – and scrubbing said pollution adds expense and reduces efficiency. Modern nuclear plants produce very little waste (much less than the generation of plants we have in the US now that date from the 60’s and 70’s), and they don’t emit any of the stuff that coal plants do.
If you wanted to build one right in my neighborhood, I’d be all for it. Most of the opposition would come from liberals, like the guy running my state now. Heck, he’s banned erecting windmills on state property. He’s objectively in favor of more coal, too.
Instead of spinning fact free fantasies about what I’ll do in the future, how about you go and discuss reality with your own political allies on the left? They’re the ones stopping solar plants (like the proposed Mojave desert one), wind installations (bird kill worries), and nuke plant construction. Sure, there are NIMBY issues as well – but they pale in comparison to the money and lawsuits brought from your allies.
As to “advocating for nuclear power” – go show me what any recent president (of either party) actually did to encourage it.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Well, we’ll just have to see, James.
I stand by my prediction.
For the third time: YOU MEAN LIKE THE LAST THREE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES?
October 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
The climate change bill you’re so desperate to block includes incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants.
That was remarkably easy.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
The current “Conservative Party” of the UK is anything but conservative. They are left-wing globalists – not unlike many in the GOP (Bush, McCain, Graham).
If you want to see the real conservative party, look at the British National Party.
Long live the BNP!!!
October 16th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I’m going to stick with my theory that the current GOP is driven by people who think the economy is at its best when they see the most dust in their rearview mirror. They figure to live through climate change, and given that, there’s really no problem.
I’m sure they consider the Tories a crowd of weak-wristed mahu, ever since they passed on the chance to knee-cap the NHS and the rest of the public sector “when they had the chance” in Margaret Thatcher’s day.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
What #5 said. Though Cameron has said that he won’t cut the NHS. We’ll see how much the Tories do when they get elected.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I’m not ready to call him Dubya II, but everything I’ve read and seen from David Cameron betrays a shocking level of ignorance. And just like here with Bush, the British media doesn’t seem to want to criticize him at all for it, for some reason.
Matt praises him for his pro-environment stances, but a few months ago he was touting the idea of an environmental stock exchange as a solution for global warming. And no, I checked, that wasn’t some fancy buzzword for cap and trade. He was actually proposing opening a new stock exchange to list “green” companies.
That’s just face slappingly stupid proposal that won’t amount to anything, and yet the journalists at the press conference treated it like a legitimate policy proposal.
And yeah, the British Conservatives were actually worse than the Republicans when it came to responding to the recession. Republicans wanted to use it an excuse for nothing but tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts, but the Tories actually wanted to impose austerity and try to balance the budget.
They certainly don’t look like a party that’s capable of actually governing a major country. But the UK looks like they’re going to elect them anyway. I hope it turns out better for them than it did for us.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
For anyone like me who was so curious that they downloaded the white paper to check why the Tories would say “greater New York”, Matt also changed “London” to “New York”.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Joe – the last 3 Democratic Presidents may have mouthed things about nuclear power. However, not one of them has actually exerted any effort to move the ball forward.
Too many allied feathers would get ruffled. You guys like to go on and on about the supposedly anti-science nature of the right; go get the beams out of your own eyes. Start with nuke power, keep going with GMO food (or keep letting poor people in Africa starve), and continue on with DDT (no, bed nets are not an answer, unless you want to claim that people can stay behind them at all times).
October 16th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Because of naive unicorns like you people, I’m going to have to worry for my family’s safety and my children’s future. I truly appreciate it.
You know, when I think about which group of American have greatly endangered our safety and fucked things up for our children, I don’t point my finger at liberals.