Tony Abbott wins his “referendum on the repeal of the carbon tax”


         As news breaks of a large conservative victory by Tony Abbott’s Liberal/National Coalition in Australia the BBC sets about the task of retailing  propaganda from the losing Labour party. We are told Mr Abbott became Prime Minister  merely because Labour had been split and divided. We are assured his policies are not popular and played no part in his stunning victory. They underplay the magnitude of it, with the conservative  coalition on course for a large majority. They tell us his scepticism about climate change and his opposition to inward economic migration are unpopular. They will, they tell us, undermine Australia’s standing in the world.

           It doesn’t read like that in the Australian and world press.  Mr Abbott clearly stated his scepticism about global warming theory, questioning how much global warming there is and how much can be attributed to man made carbon dioxide emissions. He made opposing and then offering repeal of the carbon tax central to his campaign. He won a big victory despite his opponents showering him with disapproval for his climate change views.

          This makes it an important election and an important victory. It is the first time in an advanced country that an anti climate change mainstream party has ousted a pro climate change mainstream party, making it a central issue of the election. It shows that Australian voters want cheaper energy, and see its importance to living standards, competitiveness and jobs. I suspect hostility to dear and scarce energy brought on by climate change policies will spread to other advanced countries, as people see the damage dear energy does to living standards, and see how such policies simply drive the carbon producing activities elsewhere in the world.

           Mr Abbott also promised to take a tougher line on inward economic migration. The Australian  Labour party sought to match his rhetoric on this, as they came in office to see the unpopularity of their earlier relaxed borders approach.   He has also promised to balance the budget, recommending cuts in areas like overseas aid.

           It will  be interesting to watch how he gets on. Doubtless the BBC and their politically correct friends around the world will develop their attempts to undermine and belittle what he is doing. As of today Mr Abbott clearly speaks for the Australian people. They have endorsed his repeal of the carbon tax.  Some enterprising journalist should seek to ask Lynton Crosby what he thinks of Mr Abbott’s winning election strategy. The issues and the viewpoints were very different from those favoured by the EU, which continues with dear energy and rapid migration policies.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Brian Taylor
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    What chance have we got that these policies will spread to the Conservatives at the next Election.
    If not who speak for me?
    All the above policies will depend on our New Arrangement with the EU and if not articulated before the Election should I just go with the Tories on trust.
    You must be joking!
    Please pass this on to DC.

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps Mr Cameron should invite Mr Abbott to the Conservative Party Conference as the key note speaker, on how to win elections.

      I will view with interest Mr Abbotts progress in putting his policies to the test..

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    I have just been staying in Australia. I can tell you that the ABC (=BBC) was full of admiration for Labour. In the funny programmes, it was always Julia Gillard and Mr Rudd who were affectionately imitated, while Tony Abbott was treated as completely ridiculous – appearing in a dinner jacket with a pair of budgie smugglers for example as something out of Downton Abbey.

    The people I was staying with were Greens. They loathed the ALP (Labor Party). Mr Rudd exchanged places with Julia Gillard and they were in no way excited. But the society is so cellular I didn’t get much of a chance to meet people with Liberal views (=Conservative). To all the people they introduced me to, Climate Change is a clear and present danger. Anyone who questions that is either wicked or an idiot.

    My bet is that from now on, the BBC will simply not mention Australia at all.

    PS The man’s a Catholic too!!!

    • Vanessa
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      Mike – if you equated our atmosphere with an Olympic swimming pool filled with 3,200 gallons of water, only 5 fluid ounces would be man-made carbon dioxide. That is the same world-wide, not just over Britain. The rest of the gas is natural coming from the oceans, plants etc.
      Anthony Watts, a well respected physicist, has a good website “watts up with That” and it is very informative.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        Most honest physicists (most are I find, in private at least) are sound on the subject believing it to be an absurd religious/political exaggeration, a new re-invention of hell. They can see very clearly how bogus the science of predicting weather and climate for 100 years is. We do not even have much of the input data for most variables of this hugely chaotic system. Anyway the solutions proposed do not even work even in c02 terms and hotter is probably better than colder anyway.

        The Met office cannot even get the average temperature predictions for the recent years right, predicting too high nearly every year. One assumes for reasons of a religious/political infection.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        What you analogy doesn’t mention is the effect this extra man-made carbon dioxide is having. It seems claiming that a small effect is the same as no effect is in vogue for the deniers.

        • Vanessa
          Posted September 10, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

          Carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million and plants love more CO2 as they grow more and produce more. Sometime in the past there was something like 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now – that is not 10% more but TEN TIMES more. It did not destroy the planet.

          We have a global growing population which is looking increasingly difficult to feed and therefore more CO2 will help to grow more food, unless of course you use it to make biofuels so you can drive your car but there is nothing to eat !

    • Johnny Norfolk
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      It is 13.58. I have just had a look at the BBCs front page and guess what. Not a sign of the story, nothing. How do they get away with it.

      • Peter Martin
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        ‘How do they get away with it’
        Because there is nothing to stop them.
        At least, for now.
        There may be a slight change as a result of Monday’s PAC inquiry, as organisations run by a bunch of mendacious, (or ed)forgetful, greedy and/or uncurious (people ed) must, eventually, be held to account.
        Even if the BBC, uniquely, still feels it is not covered by such a requirement.
        On matters of editorial decision you will be lucky to get any idea what has motivated them, especially when it is the most odious error of omission. So easy to commit; even easier to dissemble. They will simply fall back on ‘belief’ their choices were honest and right, and that’s that. an FoI will be met with an exclusion.
        They are a propaganda machine without peer, backed with censorship powers without fear.
        The historical precedent remains a clear concern.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

        That the BBC has again reported a major world political event with such clear bias is a scandal (the elections of Obama being other examples). It is time to stop pretending the BBC is neutral, allow them to carry on propagating leftist views, but force them to balance that with opposing opinions as a condition of continuing the license fee and exemption from competition regulation.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

          Well it will not change with people like the complaisant Lord Patten put at the head of the trust, by Cameron. Why on earth is he still there?

        • Johnny Norfolk
          Posted September 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

          That is supposed to be the main plinth of their charter. The politicians are too frighened to take them on. But I know a man who can.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        You can’t expect a story to remain on the front page for long. Especially when it’s something that doesn’t directly affect the UK.

        Though I was able to find this story after a short search.

    • Duyfken
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

      I don’t care what his religion is but I’m proud of his nationality (I’m one of his mob) and that we at last now have a national leader with the right outlook. The immediate problem to watch is how the Senate pans out, there are so many peripheral parties which may gain seats there that Abbott could be stymied for some of the reforms he rightly wishes to introduce.

  3. Leslie Singleton
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Absolutely right about the BBC, according to whom Mr Abbot didn’t really win but rather the Labour Government lost especially through changing their leader twice thus blinding the impressionable electorate to how wonderful Labour had been. The whole flavour of the report I had the pleasure of watching was that it wouldn’t be long before this latest result is reversed and things are back to normal. BTW am I right in thinking that New Zealand has managed to resist homogenising itself with Australia in some pettifogging antipodean “EU”? They seem to have some common sense down there so I suspect not.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:40 am | Permalink

      Postscript–Should have said “…..I am”.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:42 am | Permalink

        PPS–Also two t’s in Abbott.

  4. David Thompson
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Hope he succeeds and the UK finally wake up and follow his lead.

  5. Lifelogic
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    I too was amazed by the line the BBC was taking (it was totally absurd even by BBC standards), it was all due to the splits in the left not the sensible, popular policies of the Abbott and the dreadful policies of Kevin Rudd and the loopy Welsh born, Julia Gillard.

    The issues and the viewpoints are indeed very different from those favoured by the EU and alas also loved by Cameron and the Coalition namely very dear, religious energy and uncontrolled migration policies. Not that I am against migration, it is all about getting the right migrants when needed and ones who can fund themselves fully and make a net contribution. If like Cameron you have a too generous benefit system and open doors you get the opposite. Then as we see schools, the NHS, social housing simply cannot cope and the deficit just increases further & further, revenues decline and the productive leave.

    The question is will Abbot now rat on it all, kick the voters in the teeth and just turn in to a BBC think, fake green, tax borrow and waste, huge bloated state sector person. Loopy Libdems just as Cameron has done to the Tories.

    Last night I caught the interview of Frost with John Major when he resigned in 1995 to be challenged by JR. A wet pathetic interview with a similar man. He sounded as though he was addressing very dim primary school children, refused to rule out the euro or even promise a referendum, no mention of the ERM fiasco. We did not see the JR interview which would have been far more interesting.

    How on earth did the party vote for Major by 218 votes to Redwood’s 89 for this fool to sink the ship for three now four terms thank to Cameron?

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      What was SKY and the rest of the news channels saying? You do not watch them though do you as this would derail you BBC fantsy would it?

      • Span Ows
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        Bazman, Lifelogic wrote “I too was amazed by the line the BBC was taking”…so why are you asking if he watched other news channels (which presumably he isn’t taxed to pay for). And then, equally as odd as your question, you answer for Lifelogic! Seems he isn’t the one with a BBC fantasy.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:52 am | Permalink

          If the BBC is an unreliable source and bias then you must question why he only watches the BBC?

          • Edward2
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:55 am | Permalink

            Point to where LL said the BBC was the only channel he or she watched.
            Or is this another made up fantasy post from you Baz?

          • Bazman
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

            He never mentions any other channel reporting the same news so I presume this is the only news source he views?!

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 10, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Mainly I am working from home or car, so I have radio 3 or 4 on, occasionally I catch Newsnight and the absurdly lefty Andrew Marr show and the Daily Politics (which is with Andrew Neil is the only one that is not like listening to the Guardian TV).

        Nearly all seen to be dim art graduates, all are pro EU, anti science, with an absurd loopy feminist think, ever bigger state, higher taxes, enforced “equality” regardless of merit and all believe in the new global warming hell religion (this despite not having a science A level to rub between them nor having a clue what positive or negative feed back are).

        • Bazman
          Posted September 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

          As say you do not watch any other source of news in case it says the same as the BBC and you delusion is undermined. Your next paragraph is loony RWC repeated like a chant with no basis. You hope some will stick as propaganda as this is what it is because when challenged on any rant are found badly wanting.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      You have also failed to address a number of point made to your posts. We will assume then that you either agree or have no arguments against them. Why do you then continue to write your nonsense? Is it a religious belief?

      • Peter Martin
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

        ‘We will assume then that you either agree or have no arguments against them’
        This ‘we’ of whom you speak… is it royal in nature?

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:51 am | Permalink

          The lack of replies by people like yourself on the actual subject. Like this one.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      “refused to rule out the euro”

      Yes, the euro would be a deeply flawed “one-size-fits-all” currency, but nonetheless we would willingly agree to the other EC member states embarking upon that very dangerous project – very dangerous both for them, and for everybody else – and in fact we wouldn’t rule out joining it ourselves, and in any case we would also agree that every new member state must promise to join it as soon as possible, and, no, we have no intention of allowing you lot to interfere through a referendum.

      What a crazy, totally inconsistent, policy; unless of course Major was looking to the longer term when the euro would have spread across almost the whole of Europe, and the UK would finally succumb to the pressure to join.

    • zorro
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

      I thought that the funniest thing about this was Cameron’s tweet about looking forward to working with a fellow minded ‘centre right’ politician…”it’ll be great working with another centre right leader.”….One assumes that he’s talking about himself.


      • lifelogic
        Posted September 10, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        Cameron is clearly a centre left “BBC think” loopy loon. What on earth is centre right about him. Abbott is perhaps middle of the road, but will probably be dragged to the left a little by the Australian “BBC think” lot.

  6. Nina Andreeva
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately JR looking at the latest opinion polls it looks as though “Notting Hill conservatism” is here to stay as why should Dave change what appears to be a vote winning formula?

    However you cannot become dependent on fossil fuels forever and at some point you are going to have to accept renewables have part to play (never mind the country that masters their successful development will flourish economically like no other, why do you think Germany is
    spending billions on them?). As Jim Rogers (George Soro’s former partner at the Quantum Fund and unlike him a libertarian) always answers when questioned on the price of oil, when was the last big oilfield discovered i.e. there is no new stuff coming on tap so keep on expecting high prices. A quicker way to cut fuel costs would also be to stop money printing too. You should also not think fracking is the universal panacea to our energy needs. (ref to unchecked site ed)

    • Nina Andreeva
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      JR Dr Morgan was until recently head of global research at Tullett Prebon so why does he need checking? Presumably you checked the (words deleted ed) site Forthurst posted the other day and therefore approved its content?

      Reply I may have missed a reference – I do try to check or delete references. I also make clear I do not stand by the content on sites I do allow references to as it would be impossible to satisfy myself about all their content. If you send me the reference you think should be deleted I will do so, if I did not check it by mistake.

      • forthurst
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps we can all, including JR, be afforded a comprehensive statement of Nina Andreeva’s world view, since it would appear that anything in conflict with it accords her undue distress; quite obviously, JR does not necessarily endorse all opinions expressed on his site and it would be greatly diminished if it did.

    • oldtimer
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      From my reading of Der Spiegel International articles, Germany`s green energy investments have proved to be duds. I also read that German industries that consume large amounts of energy have sought and received exemptions from the German government from the costs of green energy; so much so that the EU Commission has complained about it.

      As for fossil fuels, there are estimated to be several hundred years of supply available based on present knowledge, technology and prices. No doubt technological developments will improve methods of extraction of fossil fuel resources and the efficiency of their use.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      Nina–You have joined the ranks of the twaddle talkers

      • Nina Andreeva
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

        Les matey you need to get onto the Manchester Building Soc and warn them of the “interest rate risk” that they are running with all those 25 year mortgages they provided last year. Better still get yourself over to America and warn the banks too as loans of that length there are the nom. So grateful will they be for your insight that they might even nominate you for the Nobel Prize in economics.

        Gentlemanly as ever all you can add are insults and opinions that seem to be devoid of facts to support them

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 7:24 am | Permalink

          Nina–You have even the big picture confused, that picture being whether a bank on its own (ie without Government support) can sensibly make a very long term fixed, repeat fixed, rate loan. John eventually published mine of a few days ago and now another I have just seen below. Be assured I know full well about American practice–I for a while sold the damn things in America. This is not genius or Nobel Prize winning stuff and you should try to absorb the simplicity of why such lending cannot be done sensibly on a free-standing basis. Why not 100 years?? I have never heard of the Manchester Building Society but I do note that you omitted the absolutely crucial word “fixed” from what you say. A 25 year (well secured) loan at some kind of floating rate is like falling off a log though I dunno as I write if that’s what you are talking about. Try harder to distinguish Credit risk, Rate risk and indeed where applicable Currency risk. In America, though I didn’t have to get involved with funding when I was there, they have the Government Agencies Ginny Mae and Freddie Mac to absorb a lot of the risk. As I say, what I thought we were talking about was whether Government help to fund/ insure/ guarantee such things should be made available over here and I of course am rooting for definitely not. As for my not being a gentleman, don’t make me laugh (etc ed)

          • APL
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

            Leslie Singleton: “I was there, they have the Government Agencies Ginny Mae and Freddie Mac to absorb a lot of the risk.”

            Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are both now in ‘conservatorship – since 2008’, that is officially being run on the tax payers ‘dime’ because they were bankrupt.

            So government 25 yr fixed rate loans don’t work out that well, in the USA either.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      Nina–Back to your comments on 25 year mortgages all I can say is that your experience and knowledge in these matters is even less than I thought. There is of course no question of 25 year fixed mortgages being impossible. Au contraire they are the easiest loans to make in some ways (very little admin). The question is whether they are a good idea. I work on the basis that it is (certainly was) impossible to match fund or lock in the bank’s profits on a loan whose rate is fixed for as long as 25 years. If they are to be made at all a huge margin (not your cup of tea at all I’d bet) is mandatory to guard against rises in rates. John appears to have vetoed another comment of mine a couple of days ago so no point repeating it

      • Nina Andreeva
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:44 am | Permalink

        I am more “vetoed ” than you! Sorry but how are you in a position to comment on my experience/qualifications when you have never met me or even know what I do for a living?

        This type of loan does not seem to be a problem for US lenders, just a quick trawl on google shows I can get a 30 yearer there for 4.57% which is very attractive after considering lots of pundits going on about the secular shift out of bonds and the subsequent rise in interest rates

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Later to Nina–I have again written at length and maybe John will publish it in due time. Meanwhile, try to absorb that all loans have to be what’s called funded and of course if the US Government assists in that funding (at a cost to the taxpayer) via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just about anything is possible, which is different from its being sensible. I am fighting against that happening over here. Do keep watch for my main effort.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      Nina Andreeva

      Not sure where you get you information from but your absurd claim that no new oilfields are being discovered is quite laughable. I suggest you try google.

      There are vast NEW oilfields being opened in Uganda and Kenya this year alone. The Venezuelan oilfields are bigger than Saudi Arabia. Fracking and shale oil and gas has already identified more to be extracted than all the oil and gas so far extracted in history. Just saying stuff without checking is pointless

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

        libertarian you really should check your figures. The Venezuelan oilfields (Bolivar Coastal Field) are less than half the size of the Saudi Arabian ones (Ghawar Field).

        The new oilfields in Uganda and Kenya won’t open until 2018 and 2016 respectively, so it’s not possible to know how much oil they’ll produce or how long they’ll last.

        Your comments about it being possible to extract more shale oil and gas than regular oil and gas is laughable as you clearly don’t know how much of either has already been extracted throughout human history.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      We have nuclear, fracking for gas, and coal before they run out we will probably have fusion and perhaps cost effective solar panels and wind too. But there is no point in going for solar and wind until it works without subsidy. You just end up with a lot of duff technology and money down the drain thanks to absurd subsidies from Osborne.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

        Given that none of the fuel methods you mention will work without a subsidy (huge tax breaks are a subsidy) there’s no reason to ignore wind and solar when oil and gas won’t work without subsidies.

        • Edward2
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

          This ridiculous argument of yours that any tax break or tax allowance is a subsidy has been demolished several times on here before and yet you still persist in repeating it.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 10, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

          Even if you pay no tax it is not a “subsidy” it is just no tax! We are should not be slaves just pay a little for some basic services £5K each worker per year is plenty for those needed.

  7. DrJohnGalan
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Not a hint of the Australian change of government while I was watching BBC Breakfast this morning, although their cricket team did get a mention.

  8. Iain Gill
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    well said john

  9. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Off-topic, JR, I’ve just read your open letter to the US Congress:

    Very good, and I hope they pay attention.

    Reply Thanks. I will give it some more coverage tomorrow.

    • Richard1
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

      I missed that. Excellent letter – does one get replies to open letters? I understand it is the case, absurdly, that Messrs Obama and Kerry have asserted that Syria is a threat to the USA. Congress should require them to focus on bringing Assad and other criminals to justice, and imposing sanctions on states which support or harbour them. A military punishment strike against ill defined targets will be a misuse of power and be counter-productive.

  10. Hope
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    What pity Cameron thinks the exact opposite and sits on his hands while the Lib Dems rule DECC and cost us all a fortune. He is not listening to the likes of you JR. The wind farms continue to be built, houses being built over evey bit of countryside for mass immigration, school places cannot be found in good areas as EU immigrants get presence on a point system to live in the houses being built. Localism is a joke, the beautiful geography of areas are being changed, demographics and culture becoming like a third world country with the destruction of Christianity. All it appears with Cameron’s blessing to promote the EU superstate. Only one party offers conservative values and to protect our way of life, that is UKIP. No one can see what Conservative values Cameron stands for.

  11. Trevor Butler
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Interesting that the following report appears the day after his election but probably just a co-incidence:-

    • uanime5
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      I read that article, it was full of the usual denier nonsense such as ignoring that the average global temperature has increased since 1997; and claiming that scientists were talking about global cooling even though they couldn’t name who these scientists were, how many scientists were considering this, or what these scientists were predicting. But that’s what happens when journalists substitute their own dogma in place of research.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        Have another read – it names 2 scientists. The facts are not on your side. There is widespread acceptance – even now by the Met Office – that there has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years. In a change from the original response by the Climate Change lobby, which was to deny this fact, various attempts are now being made to explain it, or to dismiss the significance of a 15 year (as opposed to a longer) hiatus in warming. Meanwhile the following facts are of interest: 1) ice cover in Antarctica is at a 30 year high, 2) as the article says summer sea ice in the Arctic this year is much increased 3) there has been no increase in either the incidence or severity of extreme weather events. All of these run counter to global warming hysteria as originally put forward 25 years ago and undermine the case for green policies and expensive energy.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        For interest, what are your own scientific qualifications?

      • Span Ows
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        so, there isn’t more ice or there is? Plus have you (should I say climate fanatics, or climate extremists?) taken into account the increased ice eastwards in line with Magnetic Pole movements?

        And by using ‘denier’ you immediately belittle your argument. NOBODY denies ‘climate change’. I’ll let Rodney leach epistle ring in your ears: “What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?

        A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

          A denier denies that climate change is man made. That’s why they keep claiming that humans can release as much CO2 as they want without it having any negative effects.

          They’re also ignorant of how long climate science has been going on (since the 19th century), they have no idea what effect various gases have on the climate so they assume that no one understand it, they ignore evidence because it keeps showing that they’re wrong, and don’t perform any scientific tests. In short they display all the symptoms of religious zealots who sees no reason to investigate anything because their own ideology is all the proof they need. So the opposite of a scientist.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

            “Deniers” is a term which tries to relate and denigrate other people’s opinions to those who deny the holocaust ever happened and as such it is a deliberate term of abuse.
            It gives hope to those of us who are skeptics that we will be proved right when we see those who currently agree with the consensus view how they need to reduce themselves to this and other terms of abuse.
            You say “A denier denies that climate change is man made”
            This is wrong, they don’t.
            The argument is about to what extent humans are responsible for climate change and how much climate change is caused by other things or is a natural part of nature.
            To believe humans are 100% responsible is not a credible position.
            The climate changed before man was on this planet and so therefore other forces and factors must have an effect on the way the climate changes.
            Your views are more set and lacking in any questioning of the current scientific “evidence” and as such is not scientific either.
            I would just ask you to again look at the original IPPC report and the Al Gore film and see that the predictions made then, already can be seen to not have come true.
            One final point, how will the warmists ever manage to get every single nation on Earth to agree on a total world CO2 level with each nation having I presume its own agreed proportion, and then adjust this level for the rest of time in order to control the Earth’s climate which you say is only altered by man’s CO2.
            If in the unlikely event that this stage was achieved and the temperature was to start going down again, would you be encouraging an increase in CO2 output by mankind in order to bring temperatures back up?

      • John Wood
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps the photographs of the extended ice cap were photoshopped

        • uanime5
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

          More likely they just pull up a random picture with snow and ice on it.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

            Who is the denier now Uni?
            Just because you don’t like the evidence in the report and the photograph doesn’t make it untrue.

  12. lifelogic
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    The lesson for Cameron is to reverse his quack science & the religious green policy, stop pissing money down the drain on daft green subsidies, HS2 drivel and everything else similar, stop war mongering, get us a Greater Switzerland EU agreement, get the endless state sector waste and its 50% overpay/pensions under control, run a sound currency, have selective immigration (for well paid skills we actually need). Then set an uplifting agenda for a low tax, small state, pro business, high growth vision.

    Alas he has (through his modernising drivel and incompetence) saddled us with the Libdems, and anyway not a word he says can now ever be trusted. He seems, alas, genetically incapable of anything sensible like this.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      Or nuclear subsidies? The rest is RWC with no basis and when challenged cannot be defended. Switzerland is a middle class society with a many laws tax and regulation combined with social justice which you do not agree with preferring to grow the economy without sharing blindly believing in the trickle down effect. Why do you believe in this without basis? You continue writing nonsense an I will continue challenging you. BBC? What?!

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        Could you at least challenge me with a single rational argument for a change?

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:53 am | Permalink

          Look back at previous posts. Do you understand this?

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:02 am | Permalink

          Answer this one in a sensible rational way as you rant about employment laws at ever opportunity. No reply make you a dreamer and a fantasist.
          What needs simplifying in employments law?. Again and again you are told of self employment, short term contracts, zero hour contracts, umbrella companies. It is not as if an employee has any rights before three months and little before three years. What is getting in the way of free agreement between employer and employee?
          Understand this as a reasonable and rational question?

          • lifelogic
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

            Employment laws get in the way of free contracts in countless job destroying ways. Just read any employment laws, legal publications and tribunal ruling. No retirement of staff for example, disability laws endless correct procedures, restrictions on interviews and prescribed methods that simply do not fit the real world.

          • libertarian
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 11:15 am | Permalink


            How many people do you employ in the business you started and run?

          • Bazman
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

            It’s a wonder anyone even gets job despite self employment, short term contracts, zero hour contracts, umbrella companies and it is not as if an employee has any rights before three months and little before three years. Do get that? More RWC from you without any specific answers. Hire and fire at will with any reason such as prejudice and complaints about dangerous practices cannot and should not happen. Questioning employment laws is not just restricted to employers libertarian. Companies have been bent over backward to in recent years and the employee needs protecting and rewarding for their efforts in producing often very large profits for low wages. You can both ram it until lyou can come up with sense.

    • Richard1
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      Funnily enough I think the LibDem coalition provides a lifeline. He could plausibly blame green policies and maybe even HS2 on the LibDems and jack them for the next election. Of course there would be a few embarrassing references to ‘vote blue get green’, but the majority of the electorate would reward the junking of quack global warming policies, as they have done in Australia.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

        Yet only 3 Tories voted against the absurd climate change act 2008 and he goes on about the greenest government ever or some such drivel. And pays 40p+? or something for electricity (not even on demand electricity) worth 4P a KWH.

        • Richard1
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:19 am | Permalink

          I thought it was 5? A good policy would be to put it to a free vote again. I doubt it would now pass given new evidence and public dissatisfaction with the policies.

  13. Nick
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Not going to happen here whilst the likes of Tim Yeo are in the game. (draws attention to his Parliamentary role and his business interests ed)

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Not just Huhne, Davey, Cameron, the Libdems & Yeo, almost every MP voted in favour of the climate change act. They are therefore nearly all either innumerate, scientifically illiterate, taken in easily by religion, very, very stupid, dishonest, or doing it for personal or shallow political advantage reasons. I cannot see any other explanations.

      It now has no longer any political advantages anyway, they just cannot now bring themselves to admit their error & stupidity. Rather like the ERM I suppose, group think and inertia right up to when they all fall off the cliff together.

      • alan jutson
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:52 am | Permalink


        But if they changed their minds, they would surely have to change/remove the green taxes imposed originally.

        Otherwise, what was the point of green taxes.

        Unless it was simply to raise more money from taxation.

        Thus, I think you have your answer.

  14. GrahamC
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Fortunately the Australian people can decide for themselves – not a luxury that we have given the EU chains we have to carry – and of course the lack of a leader with balls.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Indeed nor even a majority.

  15. terry
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Great news for Australians.
    Why does these PC lovers bang on about the pretence – the dangers of carbon emissions? Yes, CO2 is a contributor to the so-called greenhouse gases but they never say just how much. And why is it human inventions that are responsible for the perceived rise in volumes? Tons of it are released to the atmosphere every time a forest gets chopped down and in Amazonia where 3 football pitch sized forests are removed each day, every day. Same goes for Indonesia who capitalise on the alternative energy craze. They chop down trees to clear the ground to plant palm or corn or another other bio “source” of energy creation. Millions of tons of CO2 are released by this method yet nobody is protesting about that destruction to our planet. Without GHG the planet would be colder, so it is essential that it remains in place. Given that the main “culprit” within GHG is H2O vapour, by far the highest proportion, perhaps we should cease to wash our clothes, pull the plug on boiling up kettles and stop showering more than once per week. But only if the rest of the World joins in. It is pointless our cutting back when the Oriental nations push on regardless. Not forgetting nature’s hand, the 2010 eruption of the Icelandic volcano threw out more carbon than had been saved over ALL the preceding years.
    Life on earth needs carbon – don’t take it away. The Asian nations must laugh at the dumb westerners. All the way to the bank.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      Yes, CO2 is a contributor to the so-called greenhouse gases but they never say just how much.

      Well given that increased CO2 levels last for about a century, whereas other gases last for a shorter amount of time it’s difficult to precisely calculate the effect each gas is having at any given time.

      And why is it human inventions that are responsible for the perceived rise in volumes?

      Well humans are releasing huge amounts of CO2 while at the same time cutting down forests which reduce CO2 levels.

      Millions of tons of CO2 are released by this method yet nobody is protesting about that destruction to our planet.

      What about all the “save the rainforest” campaigns? Just because you’ve been ignoring these campaigns doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      Given that the main “culprit” within GHG is H2O vapour, by far the highest proportion, perhaps we should cease to wash our clothes, pull the plug on boiling up kettles and stop showering more than once per week.

      Water vapour leaves the atmosphere after a week, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century. So it’s clear which one is going to cause the most harm in the long term.

      Not forgetting nature’s hand, the 2010 eruption of the Icelandic volcano threw out more carbon than had been saved over ALL the preceding years.

      Either province evidence of this or admit you made it up.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        Interesting how a post that points out the flaws with a climate change denier’s argument using scientific evidence is awaiting moderation, while posts that encourage climate change denial are approved almost immediately.

  16. Mike Wilson
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    This article really made me chuckle. Here Mr. Redwood clearly celebrates the victory of Tony Abbott. The policies responsible for his victory are, apparently, scepticism about climate change and opposition to (economic) immigration.

    Now, of course, the party of which Mr. Redwood is a member does not share these policies with Mr. Abbott. But, guess what, UKIP has those policies!

    Perhaps, in 2015, people in this country will also vote en-masse for a party with the same policies as Mr. Abbott in Australia. He sounds like a breath of fresh air. Have to have a look again to see if there is any way we can wheedle our way in.

  17. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of a carbon tax, it is clear enough that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere cannot carry on for ever. Since energy consumption per hear has been roughly constant for decades, why is nobody latching on to the obvious solution of zero world population growth? There are plenty of people around already.

    ZPG would involve more extensive use of family planning, which would offend Islam and the Church of Rome, to name but two branches of organised religion. It would mean a clampdown on immigration by advanced nations, so that developing nations couldn’t export people and had to sort out their own problems. And it would sensibly imply that the medical profession stopped prolonging old age artificially and expensively – not euthanasia, just a little benign neglect.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      The best contraception is higher living standard Europe is ageing at frightening rate. Russia in particular die to the economic hardships and lack of housing. 100’s of Millions of small cooking fires are lit every night burning wood which is dirty and bad for the health. They would prefer to use kerosene but is to expensive. Most migration is between third world countries and not the west.

    • rose
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:58 am | Permalink

      Have you ever heard Ms Lucas mention population? On the contrary, she actually celebrates mass immigration and seems to want more of it.

      “Population, population, population” should be the only credible slogan from ecologists.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        Rose–Not to mention a female Liberal MP name of Teather who has just announced that she is going to stand down at the Election because her party is not Liberal enough for her. Where do people like her live exactly? How on earth was she elected?? Thank God there aren’t many like her.

  18. Bert Young
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Let us hope that the UK Conservatives take a leaf from Abbott’s book . Something fresh and right wing is definitely needed to inject life into the veins ; persuading the likes of me back into the fold will take something fairly dramatic .

  19. Peter Stroud
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Firstly, how typical of our dear BBC to spin against any man made climate scepticism. The fact that the sceptic is a right wing politician only enhances its need to spin.

    But more importantly is that, in this country, the only political party that is dubious about climate change orthodoxy is UKIP. Yet the models used by the IPCC are now all but falsified. Even today we see completely rubbished, a 2007 BBC prediction, that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Never before has such poor science been used by policy makers. Never before have such policies been such a drain on the purses of ordinary people.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      How exactly does a BBC prediction make the science wrong? Surely only a prediction by scientists, rather than journalists, could do that. I trust you’re not confusing journalists with scientists.

      • Peter Martin
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        ‘I trust you’re not confusing journalists with scientists.’
        From what I see and hear, with the BBC that seems to be exactly what would happen if their ‘journalists’ ever had to prepare an impartial story from actual relevant experts.

        Luckily for them they seem to have managed a symbiotic arrangement with #prasnews providers employed by organisations they feel comfortable hearing from.

        The only loser sadly is accurate or objective science reporting.

        Which given a supposed remit to educate and inform is a bit of a concern.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

        Are you confusing yourself with a scientist?

      • Brian A
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        It was not a BBC prediction, but rather a BBC report (12 December 2007) on a prediction made by a scientist, Professor Maslowski, who said “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007.” and, “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

      • zorro
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

        Come on uanime5, read the article…..You will see that it is scientists predicting and the BBC reporting.


  20. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    As far as I can understand scientist all over the word agree about climate change , so why should I be the one to challenge the experts.? I have not read any remarks made by Mr Abbott, but from what you have written it seems as though he does not doubt climate change, but rather the percentage of change caused by man ,which it makes sense to reduce if we can delay flooding of the planet for another 1,000 years or so before Noah and his Ark take to the seas again. In the meantime we do need to keep warm though and the carbon tax is a cruel one.

    • oldtimer
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

      If you read the scientific chapters of past IPCC reports, you will find it stated there that the climate is a chaotic, non-linear system. Such systems are not understood and are not forecastable. Some scientists claimed that their models could and would forecast the climate. Those models have failed as a comparison of their forecasts with what has actually happened confirms.

      What the public is fed, via the BBC and others, is the advice to policy makers, written by the green lobby and its supporters – just as the Climate Change Bill was drafted by a lobbyist.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

        Exactly, most sensible scientists (usually numerate physicist types I find) know that climate changes (indeed it always has and will), humans have a small effect along with very many other things (many unknown variables). We should see how it goes and adapt as needed just as we do to Tsunamis, regional variations, new viruses, bacteria and Earth Quakes.

        Certainly not tip cash down the drain now, for no rational reason, just to alter one variable. How can anyone argue with that?

      • John Wood
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        If their models were at all accurate there would be as many forecasting smaller changes in climate as those forecasting greater changes in climate than observed,

        So far: every single one of them has over estimated the effects of climate change. It is EXACTLY equivalent to the 99.9% of the population voted of their own free will for Kim Il Sung. i.e. a load of effluent.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        If you’d bothered to read the IPCC reports you’d know they don’t claim that the climate is “too difficult to understand” and they every report scientists have a greater understanding of what effect the various factors have on earth’s climate.

        • oldtimer
          Posted September 10, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

          My comment is based on and derived from my reading of the IPCC reports.

    • ian wragg
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

      You should get out more. Many scientists disagree with the climate change nonsense put out by the IPPC. Of course the climate is changing and will continue to do so as it has done since the big bang.
      A volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than man is responsible for annually. Americas CO2 emissions have halved with fracked gas and ours continue to rise.
      When the wind stops blowing we are going to generate about 20,000 MW using diesel generators . The dirtiest method known due to political stupidity.

      • sjb
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

        Ian Wragg wrote: Americas CO2 emissions have halved with fracked gas and ours continue to rise.

        The fracking process appears to release a more damaging gas than CO2 into the atmosphere: (a ed) peer-reviewed paper found methane leakage in the range 3.6% – 7.9%.

  21. Richard1
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    It is excellent news, and conservatives around the world should take heart. This is the first time an informed electorate in a mature democracy has had a chance to vote on global warming and its associated green policies as a main issue. Despite the huge weight of leftist propaganda from around the world, including from ABC, Australia’s BBC (and even more biased to the left apparently), Abbott has won on a platform of rejecting global warming hysteria, balanced budgets and lower taxes.

    I take issue with you on one point – don’t wait for an enterprising journalist to ask Lynton Crosby for his conclusions, all Conservative MPs should do so. He’s there to win the election for the Conservatives, so let’s make full use of him and draw the right conclusions.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      All the 97%? of Conservative MPs who voted for the climate change act?

  22. Athelstan.
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    What a great pity it is and what a shameful abrogation [through their lack of] responsibilities to reflect the concerns of the voting public.

    In that, no political party out of the Westminster mainstream advances and propounds even a hint of hard headed realism in policies concerned with; slashing unaffordable quangos and Statism ie, big government, halting mass immigration, putting the great global warming scam to the sword.
    We need to put a halt to the power of the green lobby, whose enormous political and corporate influence is completely out of proportion, to its paltry and mean minded misanthropic rationale. Therefore, placing the politics of pragmatism before prognostication of nebulous threats – and thereby securing Britain’s energy provision through the utilisation of abundant UK resouces of fossil fuels: supply and fortification – to the very top of the agenda.

    Does any British politician, excepting one or two enlightened Tories [Redwood and Lilley] really care about Britain and the British people?

    What chance, of a figure of similar stature and ethos to Tony Abbot, rising to the leadership of a political party in this country?

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      Would you say the green lobby has as much influence as the oil industry? Your mindless pollution by fossil fuels cannot continue. Not CO2 but dirt and particulates which like the rest of the fantasists you ignore.

      • Athelstan.
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

        “Fantasists”, absolutely not – we here deal in realities, the green lobby are the fantasists – they’d have us all back living in caves.

        What not again. The goalposts are changing yet again I see.

        I seem to recall, that, the controversy was all about man made CO2, not dust and particulates – domestic cooking and hearth fires are the worst causes of soot, dust and particulates – see India and China for that.
        Here in the UK, the clean air act of 1956 pretty much sorted most of the dust and filth in British airspace.

      • oldtimer
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

        The green lobby, specifically Bryony Worthington (now Baroness Worthington for her efforts), drafted the initial Climate Change Bill. She was then recruited into government by the Blair government to work on the Bill after Blair was re-elected. It is costing us all billions each year.

        Clean air legislation has long since been successful in removing smog from London as anyone who lived through the late 50s and 60s will testify.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:54 am | Permalink

          Still not clean be any means.Maybe in your dream world.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 7:03 am | Permalink

            Your solution to provide all the current and future energy needs for the UK only by totally clean methods is what exactly?

          • oldtimer
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

            Were you around in the 1950s? Did you ever experience London smog? If you had you would know that I do not live in a dream world.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

            The continual burning of fossil fuels into the next couple of centuries is not feasible or sustainable using current technology. You are right that much pollution and bad health comes from cooking fires. You propose to do nothing about that to I presume? The market for clean sustainable energy is massive. The problem being that at the moment, as you point out it is neither. Lets just give up then and let another country take the spoils? Fatalistic right wing do nothing fantasy as I have said. I have not said anything about banning fossil fuels only spending money on investigating where they will lie in clean sustainable energy. Imagine a car that puts 99% of the energy from the fuel into the rear wheels would certainly be fast! Leaving motor companies to develop this is not real. The same could be said with nuclear fission. No problem with any subsidies there though have we? Why? Could be a waste of time like perpetual motion. Ram it to.

  23. Martin
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    My theory would be that the change of government was caused by their cricket team’s decline. Compulsory bowling and batting added to their national curriculum perhaps?

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

      Are you thinking out of the box Martin or do you think that Australia expect with a change of government the phoenix to rise again out of the ashes?

  24. Vanessa
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    I am not surprised the BBC criticised the new Australian Conservative government their pensions are all invested in “renewable” energy and they are funded by the EU and cannot say too much against their policies.

    Most of the carbon dioxide (not carbon, a completely different substance making diamonds etc.) in the atmosphere is natural and man-made carbon dioxide is a tiny portion of what is in our air.

  25. Bazman
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    His scepticism on climate change does not negate the reliance of advanced economies on dirty fossil fuels and their associated pollution. This will retard clean technologies which will be needed in the coming centuries by the rest of the world. Nuclear fission is fatalistic fantasy which is of no more use than perpetual motion theory. Green energy may well come from fossil fuels, but right wing religious fatalistic fantasy supported by the rich and their cheerleaders does not solve anything. The competition for resources may well end in conflicts and in some places already has. How is the trickle down effect theory holing out for all you right wingers so far as the rich become richer and the middle classes get ever more poor? Still believe that bit of you bible? Your belief in fresh CO2 as plant food may take the same hit. Ram it.

    • Edward2
      Posted September 10, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      Even the most extreme greenies accept that only about 20% of our energy needs can be provided by wind solar and wave generated power
      The rest has to come from either fossil fuels or nuclear.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 11, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

        This being the crux of the problem. Doing nothing and abandoning any measures to change this is not sustainable or real.

  26. rose
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    If he hadn’t mentioned the carbon tax but just concentrated on curbing immigration and balancing the books, wouldn’t he still have won?

  27. Edward2
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    I was very surprised by the result of the Australian election which I saw early this morning on a news app on my phone, stating a landslide victory had been won by Mr Abbott.
    I say surprised, because all the TV news I previously watched and listened to (mainly BBC but Sky as well), confidently said the election was close.
    One BBC report said it was neck and neck, another said it was a knife edge.
    Wishful group think perhaps.
    Very little on the BBC about Mr Abbott since his victory explaining his policies, mainly news showing injured in Syria with concerted efforts to push the UK should join in and attack message.
    All very odd.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

      You should all try looking in world news where it was reported at 7 September 2013 at 23:02. Sky reported it at 7:55pm 07 September 2013 in their world news.
      See below and stop your BBC nonsense. When another news channel says the same what do you have to say for yourselves? Nothing. RWCing again?

      • Edward2
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        You need to read more carefully before ranting Baz.
        Firstly I was talking about when I heard of the result.
        Sorry I wasn’t as quick as you to find out.
        Secondly I included Sky when talking about my surprise how wrong mainstream media were in their predictions compared to the result.

        And as for your RWC new abuse term.
        Perhaps you should be honest and tell us what you mean by this cryptic term?

        I presume to you only left wing views are valid and all others are of no value and should be shouted down.
        What a democrat you are.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

          Right Wing Chuntering. If the hat fits..

      • Bazman
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:56 am | Permalink

        Could you tell me why there is no replies to this fantasists? Oh I’ve replied to my own question. LOL!

        • Edward2
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:50 am | Permalink

          You regularly complain others don’t reply properly to questions you pose in your posts Baz, but then you reply with this meaningless nonsense.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 10, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

            Particulates are extremely hazardous CO2 production and particulates are inextricably linked. If you propose no cuts in CO2 you do the same for dirt other gasses and particulates and find this acceptable not to mention the waste of energy by these processes.
            Do give us your views on that statement Edward2 and richard1.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 11, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

            What is your plan to power this country using only totally clean non fossil fuel sources?
            Even the most ardent Greens say only about 25% of the total energy needs could be provided by renewables with current technology.
            Not nuclear either I imagine, so how are you going to manage it?
            I’m sure with your master plan in place, we can all then move to this pollution free, low CO2 world.
            Looking forward to your reply.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 12, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

            As pointed out clean fossil fuels or clean renewable energy does at present not exist. This is the problem. Maybe it cannot ever be clean or renewable, but steps must be taken in this direction along with more efficient use and equipment such as engines that produce more energy than what they waste. Insulation for car engine as an example when most heat or energy as it stands has to be removed and expelled or failure would result. How much would an engine be worth if it could produce incredible power or MPG or a bit of both? Relying on car manufactures is not an option.

    • stred
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      Al Jazeera reported Mr Abb0tt’s victory and discussed it with an Australian political commentator. He has, according to this expert, not made many of his policies clear, particularly with regard to foreign policy. But he had made a gaffe by describing the Syrian civil war as ‘the baddies fighting the baddies’. This seemed quite a good summary of the situation and a reason to avoid taking sides.

      While reading, the campaigning by JR for the same line, I had a look at maps of Syria showing the distribution of the ethnic and religious groups. The Sunni area is the largest part and is separated from the western mediterranean side by a river and mountains. It should be possible to arrange a truce and an end to the mutual killings, providing either side can agree to govern their own areas and let the others separate.. It worked in the Yugoslavia.

  28. Johnny Norfolk
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    It all sounds a bit like UKIP. trust the BBC to play it down. You never hear about Canada now from the BBC since cCnada have chucked the left out as well.. I just hope we do.

    • Span Ows
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      LOL! I was going to mention Canada! Indeed, a great people and a great country almost ignored for not fitting the metrocentric, lefty liberal, green BBC agenda.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 10, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        How often is Canada on SKY and the rest of the news channels or the newspapers for that your paranoid fantasy worlds?

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    On-topic, before we get too excited about this we should bear in mind that Australia uses the AV electoral system and therefore cannot be considered a democracy.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

      @Denis Cooper On-topic, before we get too excited about this we should bear in mind that Australia uses the AV electoral system and therefore cannot be considered a democracy.

      Whereas a first past the post system, with unfair and biased electoral constituencies, is a democracy?

      A democracy where so many people’s votes are pointless that, in general elections, only 60% bother and in many other elections turnout is only 30%. This is your idea of democracy?

      I agree that AV is pretty poor. Better than FPTP but nowhere near as democratic as a proper system of PR.

  30. uanime5
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Yet again John is showing his ignorance regarding science. Just because politicians don’t like what scientific studies have proven doesn’t make the science wrong. If a politicians claims that showering was better at curing malaria than antibiotics that doesn’t mean that reality will change so that taking regular showers will become more effective at curing malaria than taking medicine.

    Also wanting cheap energy doesn’t mean that the effects of climate change won’t occur. It also doesn’t mean that coal, oil, and gas will magically be created so that humans don’t need to research alternative technologies.

    Finally John it’s immature of you to complain about what the BBC was reporting, while ignoring that other news stations were reporting the same things.

    • Martyn G
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

      Hmm, not sure about the science. For instance, we are now told that the Arctic ice cap in August 2013 is 60% larger than in August 2012 and that the NW Passage is iced up and trapped ships. Sorry John for link… (
      Doesn’t fit the AGW theory too well, nor has it been mentioned by the BBC, though no doubt the usual lobby will produce an excuse for getting it wrong. Again.

    • Bob
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink


      The climate has been continuously changing since the Earth was formed.
      Life has to adapt to it to survive, the way our ancestors did (before the welfare state existed).

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

        You seem to have ignored that there have been 5 mass extinctions on earth where over half of all animals suddenly died out. I guess it’s not so easy to adapt after all, which is why the people in Africa haven’t been able to adapt to the famines and droughts caused by climate change.

        • Bob
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Permalink


          If you were extinct you wouldn’t be commenting on JR’s blog.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 10, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

          Post historic monsters chuntering on about how everything would be better if left to aright wing government and the banks. We have seen how that turned out under Labour ironically. Any right wing cuts to anything that effected you personally would be an affront and mortally offensive. Anything that does not is good. We know the song…

        • Edward2
          Posted September 10, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

          Those famines and droughts were happening in Africa well before the theory of global warming was ever dreamt of
          The less than 1 degree rise in temperature in the 20th century will not have caused huge changes to a land with the Equator running across its heart.

    • Span Ows
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      proven? …how’s that consensus looking?

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        Well given that it’s supported by the vast majority of scientists because all the scientific evidence proves it’s correct I’d have to say the consensus is looking very good.

    • Richard1
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      Scientists have ‘proven’ no such thing. They have asserted (which is different from proving) that c. 100% of the 0.8C rise in temperature since pre-industrial times is due to man-made CO2 emissions. From that they have deduced a climate sensitivity of carbon and projected (which is also different from proving) a mean rise of c. 3C by the end of this century, asserting that > 2C is dangerous. But if in fact a significant part of the rise in temperature since pre-industrial times is due to natural factors, then the climate sensitivity of carbon is lower, we do not face the rate of warming forecast, and there is then no case for green policies of expensive energy.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        The reason for focusing on the BBC’s biased coverage is because the BBC is financed by a poll tax and is required to be politically neutral.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been proven. There is scientific evidence that CO2 levels effect the average global temperature and evidence that humans are producing high levels of CO2. As there are currently no other factors that could have cause the average global temperature to continually it’s clear that scientists have proven that man made CO2 is causing global warming.

        The fact that you couldn’t explain what these “natural factors” are indicates just show little you know about them.

        • Richard1
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

          Readers will note how you have distorted the argument: no-one doubts that CO2 affects the average temperature nor that humans have been producing incremental atmospheric CO2. The issue is how much warming it causes. There is no ‘proof’ at all of that which would meet the test of being a proof in any other field of science. Natural factors which could account for warming could be the same as those which caused the Roman or Medieval warming, or which caused the little Ice Age, or indeed many of the increases and decreases in average temperature which Earth has experienced throughout geological history, and which are not correlated with CO2.

          How many years of temperature standstill would it take for alarmists to admit this scare has been over-blown?

          • Bazman
            Posted September 10, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

            Quote some reputable sources of anti global warming. Watts Up and the like are non starters. No replies or sources? What does this tell us? Fatalistic religious right wing fantasy by middle aged men. Ram it.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 11, 2013 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

            Well try looking at the Met Office’s own website Baz, which has data on there showing no discernible increase in global temperatures since 2000 before you descend to personal abuse.
            Always a sign of a failing argument I feel.

    • Edward2
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

      Still no answer from you Uni despite several previous challenges.
      What of the Al Gore film and original IPPC report ‘s dire predictions which can be seen now already not to be coming true.
      Four examples:-
      The islands said to be underwater by now still visible.
      The rapidly increasing temperature we were told we would get after 2000 due to a tipping point being reached just not happening
      Predicted sea level rises of many feet, just not happening.
      Ice caps disappeared by now, not happened.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps you should actually look at the predictions made by scientists, rather than journalists before claiming that the “dire predictions” haven’t occurred.

        • Edward2
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

          Neatly sidestepping answering the points I raised, yet again Uni.

          So do you really still believe the Al Gore film’s main predictions even though they are not now coming true?
          I notice you have also shifted from saying “all scientists say”…to… “the vast majority of scientists” say. So some hope for you yet.

          What your religion needs is some rapid Marxist revisionism.
          Perhaps a new banner headline… what about Climate Disruption or Climate Imbalance instead of the abandoned catastrophic global warming which became just global warming which became climate change.

  31. Neil Craig
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    The correlation between state ownership of broadcasting and authoritarianism, corruption and economic failure worldwide has been proven. This is hardly surprising and has been the argument for a free press down the centuries.

    The only possible argument for the tax funded BBC/C4 monopoly would be if their legal duty of balance were rigorously enforced.

    As John demonstrates here and the BBC have demonstrated for decades, they make no slightest attempt at balance and nobody in authority makes any attempt to enforce that legal duty.

    This is probably why the British state gets away with us being the slowest growing English speaking nation in the world (far slower than Zimbabwe) and close to the most totalitarian.

    BBC delenda est.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      All because of the BBC not being Fox News and report all news with a right wing bent? How do you propose to deal with other news channel say thing you do not like? Dream on. Its interesting to see how when you fantasists are challenge on your views you have nothing to say? What does that tell you about you view and why they should not be taken seriously. You cannot even argue with a person of minimal education and an internet connection. You can ram it.

      • Span Ows
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        Maybe they don’t see your ‘challenges’, easy to miss a comment on one blogpost.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:56 am | Permalink


      • Edward2
        Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

        But where is your contrary argument?
        All you do is shout.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

          Look through my posts and you can see my challenges. I do not pretend to have the answers to many of the questions, but if all you can come up with is less tax and regulation on every problem you are quite simply wrong.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

            Your reply exemplifies my criticism of your posts as being attack and abuse but no arguments of your own.
            Answering a simple question of mine with a claim that “all I come up with is less tax and regulation on every problem”
            Which is totally untrue.

      • Neil Craig
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink

        Well Fox News also claim on their masthead to be unbiased. If the BBC’s claim to be unbiased is the only evidence you have for asserting it what is your basis for saying that Fox are lying and the BBC aren’t (since they can’t both be right)? 😉

        The evidence that the BBC is biased is that they visibly provide more coverage (& far more supportive and issue led coverage) per supporter to the LabConDems and 40 times more to the Greens than to UKIP and that they censor dissent on many subjects such as catastrophic global warming, the EU, illegal wars and immigration.

        Do you dispute that the BBC have still, years later, to even mention Andrew Neather’s admission that Labour spent a decade ( word left out ed) promoting mass immigration & (misled ed) their supporters or that most of the atrocities (words left out ed) in Kosovo have been censored?

        In any case having a political position in one broadcaster or newspaper is right and inevitable in a free market where there are choices. It is (authoritarian ed) in a legal monopoly in which state funding makes viewer wishes irrelevant.

  32. forthurst
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    The left has a never ending catalogue of half-baked theories; when one is finally refuted such as the superiority of the Marxist centrally planned economy (e.g. George Brown’s National Plan) over the chaos of the market, they quietly inter it and pull another out of the hat; however, I very strongly object to paying a licence fee for the BBC to propagate them ad nauseam to the exclusion of any passing attempt at objectivity or a deeper understanding. Whether it is ‘global warming’ or the superiority of a multiculture (makes us stronger: whose the ‘us’, Mr Miliband?) over a monoculture (an era which defined most of ‘our’ achievements of which Cameron is so embarassingly proud), none of them is probable, never mind certain. Nevertheless, a large part of the population can very easily be groomed into believing almost anything as a result of poor education and a lack of inate reasoning ability which is why the BBC must either be reconstituted or the licence fee abolished.

  33. forthurst
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    “I suspect hostility to dear and scarce energy brought on by climate change policies will spread to other advanced countries, as people see the damage dear energy does to living standards, and see how such policies simply drive the carbon producing activities elsewhere in the world.”

    What is so wrong is the attempt to replace mature technologies which can bear a substantial tax burden with those which are nascent, heavily subsidised and still totally uneconomic, certainly here. It would be much better to continue with research into new energy-based technologies than lock in to what quite obviously is unsustainable. The escalating disaster in Fukushima demonstrates that we do not have the technology to deal with uranium fision once uncontained; if nuclear energy is to become a dominant technology, it has to be based on either a different material, thorium, or process, so that in the event of a lunatic (words deleted ed) deciding that dropping a bomb on a plant would be a good idea, it can still be cleaned up. We cannot store the energy from electrical generation economically, yet all life exists on its having cracked the problem of economic energy storage.

  34. Rods
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Good to see electoral sense has prevailed in Australia, I just won’t be hold my breath in expectation that the Conservative leadership will adopt such policies for the 2015 election.

    Unfortunately John, your sensible views are in a minority in the Conservative party and you and other like minded Conservative MPs are kept well away from creating national policies and the levers of power, by the current leadership.

    Where reality is catching up with the IPCC and other climate alarmists where the climate has got it all wrong and is not fitting their predictions, so will probably the UK’s economy with a slightly rising £120bn a year deficit, rising bond yields and BOE forward guidance of ZIRP for the next 3 years.

  35. Chris S
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    The Inconvenient Truth

    It is utterly pointless the EU implementing hugely expensive green energy policies while China, India and other developing countries with large and growing populations continue to build and commission new coal fired power stations on a monthly basis.

    The German population is just beginning to realise the huge cost and massive loss of competitiveness that will be the result of Mrs Merkel’s rejection of nuclear power and her headlong rush towards expensive wind and solar generation.

    Trouble is, like here, there is no German party offering a sensible alternative.

    Thank goodness I took advantage of Gordon Brown’s ludicrously generous solar feed in tariff : A tax free return of 15% on my investment, index linked and guaranteed for 25 years will soften the blow of rising gas prices, especially when you add the subsidy we will get starting next year for our new heat pump.

    Thanks Gordon ! Thanks Dave !

  36. DS
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    I think 3 years 4 month (already) into his term, albeit in Coalition, it is too late for Cameron to rescue a 2nd term, certainly outwith another coalition arrangement to adopt an Abbott agenda.

    He would nevertheless be wise to move in that direction if only to staunch the loss of support to manageable numbers.

    I think it goes against his nature and he would have serious internal opposition, not only from his Lib Dem partners but from the significant ‘Moderniser’ tendency – Clarke, Maude, May,Barker, Boles, Yeo etc. though.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:32 am | Permalink

      It is probably all in the genes. Cameron simply cannot help himself from being a pro EU, big state, fake green, leftie. Just as a cuckoo cannot help laying eggs in other’s nests and dim people keep losing on the national lottery. Some work on pure emmotion & silly gut feelings others on logic and reason. Tory prime ministers ( recent anyway ) Heath, Major, Cameron are clearly of the former – they get kicked out as soon as the electorate gets a chance.

  37. Ken Adams
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    Shame Tony Abbot is not running the British conservative party, you might then stand some chance in 2015.

  38. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    Today – it seems that the penny is finally dropping in Brussels:

    “”We face a systemic industrial massacre,” said Antonio Tajani, the European industry commissioner.

    Mr Tajani warned that Europe’s quixotic dash for renewables was pushing electricity costs to untenable levels, leaving Europe struggling to compete as America’s shale revolution cuts US natural gas prices by 80pc.

    “I am in favour of a green agenda, but we can’t be religious about this. We need a new energy policy. We have to stop pretending, because we can’t sacrifice Europe’s industry for climate goals that are not realistic, and are not being enforced worldwide,” he told The Daily Telegraph during the Ambrosetti forum of global policy-makers at Lake Como.”

  39. Anonymous
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    A PM for Britain like Tony Abbott ?

    Not a chance. Not when it has become illegal to be a true conservative in Britain (anti-discrimination law) and where even our own PM describes Abbott-like opinion as those of ‘fruitcakes.’

    If you like those sorts of policies then you’re going to have to emigrate.

  40. Roy Grainger
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    It is amusing to see how the lefties have tried to explain away his victory. A popular explanation is that it was all the fault of “Murdoch” for supporting him, this single all-powerful and uniquely evil man “Murdoch” on his own persuaded a majority of Australians to vote for Abbott.

    This is typically eilitist left-wing thinking – only they are intellectually equipped to see the pronouncements of “Murdoch” as the propaganda and lies that they are, the rest of the population is too stupid to see this. The possibility that a majority of people simple agree with Abbott’s policies does not occur to them.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 9, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      Given that the Sun once claimed that they were responsible for getting a Prime Minister elected in the UK it’s not so far fetched to believe that they did the same thing in Australia.

      • Edward2
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        Well done for proving Roy’s point perfectly Uni!

      • Neil craig
        Posted September 10, 2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink

        The effect of broadcasting is far stronger than newspapers and the role of ABC in promoting big statism has been comparable to the BBC here. The idea that there was a net bias TOWARDS Abbot and the Liberals is risible.

  41. They Work For Us
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Good luck to Tony Abbott in refuting the man made CO2 global warming scam.
    On another note it was reported that the economics for HS2 are deemed to be bogus by a parliamentary body and that it would cost each taxpayer £1700 if it was built.

    What happened then? Quote from a politician “there are lots of other infrastructure projects on which this money could be spent”. Where are the voices saying it is taxpayers money and not yours to spend. Don’t spend it! Governments are like a spendthrift who has had a small windfall and then rushes to spend it (usually several times over). Big projects should be subject to a referendum with the cost per taxpayer set out as well as the real and unbiased cost. Taxpayers are not there to allow politicians to fund a project so give them a “political legacy”.

  42. Agincourt
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Whatever the merits of Abbott & his Liberal/National coalition polities, the thing most people talked about in Tasmania, where I now live, was the objectionable, Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) backroom maneuverings twice recently producing over-night new PMs – first the much parodied Julia Guillard, & then (after a failed first attempt) the very self-obsessed Kevin Rudd. Rudd’s grossly inflated self-belief – almost as if he was a Messianic figure who could walk on water – appeared so absurd as to disqualify any of the ALP’s potentially more acceptable features & parliamentary candidates.

    Certainly, I voted for Abbott. But really I was voting AGAINST Rudd & Labor, rather than for the Liberal/National Coalition. So, I suspect, were many others! Both Tony Abbott & any British Tory imitators would be wise to draw that conclusion, rather than one that would suggest that there had been a fundamental rejection of Labor & its policy of over-generous giveaways.

  43. Chris
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Tony Abbott gets to work quickly to prepare for abandoning carbon tax. See the following excerpts from the Australian and WSJ, thanks to Global Warming Policy Foundation newsletter:
    Tony Abbott Instructs Officials To Prepare To Scrap Carbon Tax
    “…According to the conventional wisdom of just a few years ago, Tony Abbott should never have become prime minister of Australia. The doyens of the press gallery had marked him as a right-wing throwback to a bygone era. After all, Mr. Abbott is skeptical about alarmist claims of man-made global warming….. For two years, the global warming debate had been conducted in a heretic-hunting and illiberal environment. It was deemed blasphemy for anyone to dare question not only the climate science but the policy consensus to decarbonize the economy. Mr. Rudd even claimed that climate change was the “great moral challenge” of our time and even denounced critics of cap and trade as “deniers” and “conspiracy theorists.” Mr. Abbott, then widely written off as a remnant of the Howard era, decided to challenge the media-political zeitgeist. Cap and trade, he argued, merely amounted to economic pain for no environmental gain, especially for a nation that accounted for only 1.4% of greenhouse gas emissions. He contested the Liberal party leadership, winning by a single vote…”
    For more than a decade Australia had one of the world’s most successful center-right governments, and on Saturday it voted overwhelmingly for a restoration. After six years of Labor Party melodrama and leftward economic policies, Australians returned a Liberal government to power under new leader Tony Abbott. There are lessons here for conservatives in the U.S. and Europe.
    One lesson is to beware the faddish politics of climate change..”

    • uanime5
      Posted September 9, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      Hey remember when George W Bush went around claiming that climate change wasn’t happening. Remember who the US replaced him with; the pro-green Obama.

      • Edward2
        Posted September 9, 2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

        I presume Uni, you haven’t heard that President Obama has presided over the biggest rush for gas by fracking and issued more licences for exploration of new oil fields which is resulting in lower energy prices of any President green or not.

  44. Chris
    Posted September 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Douglas Carswell’s article has very sound advice for Cameron:
    Personally I would have said that they had reached the soggy centre and they should drag themselves (or be dragged) out of the morass of the soggy centre and head for the sunlit uplands pdq.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page