Abbott new Liberal Leader

December 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm by David Farrar

A massive upset in Australia. Not so much that Malcolm Turnbll got roleld as Liberal Leader, but that his successor is .

news.com.au reports:

TONY Abbott has rolled Malcolm Turnbull to take over the Liberal leadership in a spill forced by deep divisions on the Opposition’s climate change policy.

Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull and Joe Hockey contested a three-way spill at a special partyroom meeting in Parliament this morning.  Mr Abbott won by a single vote, 42-41.

Mr Hockey – who had been expected to win in a landslide – was eliminated in the first round of voting.  That sent Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull into a head-to-head vote for the leadership.

But those deep divisions remain.  Yesterday Mr Hockey was demanding a free vote to decide Coalition policy on climate change early next year, if he were to agree to take on the leadership.

That angered right-wing Liberal powerbrokers and prompted Mr Abbott to stay in the race for the top job.  Turns out that was a good call.

A very good call. But the real winner is Kevin Rudd who will easily win re-election now I would say.

The vote to have a contest was 48 to 34. Then the first round ballot was Abbott 35, Turnbull 26 and Hockey 23. Turnbull almost got wiped out on the first ballot. Abbott picked up seven votes from Hockey and Turnbull picked up 15, for a final result of 42-41.

Abbott is a brawler, but hard to see him attracting widespread support to become PM.

Tags: , , ,

86 Responses to “Abbott new Liberal Leader”

  1. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Abbott is a brawler, but hard to see him attracting widespread support to become PM.

    You’re right there. He is also a slimey little papist, and that doesn’t go down well with the Aus electorate either. Think of a hard right version of Bab Santamaria, in fact Aboot would be right at home in the old DLP.

    Perhaps if Rudd were more Keatingesque, Abbott would stand a chance, but the Liberals still haven’t learned their lessons of the past. Turnbull was cut from the same cloth as Hewson, they needed Hockey who represented a lot of waht Australai has become – multi racial yet united (in the main), Hockey being palestinian / aremenian backrground,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Interesting, too, Turnbull has decalred he will stay on in parliament, and with th margin just 1 vote, Abbott may not have long in the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Hard to say. Hockey is a large man, if he lost some weight he would stand a better chance. Discriminating against fat people is one of the discriminations that is still politically correct!! Further, I don’t think he really wanted it – there is no chance that the libs will win this time around, so why not let Abbot take the hit?

    Bottom line here I think is that the spill was over climate change. Hockey’s position mirrors Turnbull’s, so in that situation why would you change one for the other.

    Abbot may yet surprise. Hell, if he doesn’t work out then there aren’t too many candidates left – feels a bit like the Labour party in NZ feel at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. godruelf (55 comments) says:

    Surely though the big one is that the Rudds ETS looks to be at least deferred 3 months. Shame the Nats didn’t have the same resolve here to put similar pressure on their leadership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    I hope this Abbott chap makes a lot of noise about the climate change con, if enough world leaders start to question it we may see the MSM embarrassed into doing their fucking job and exposing it for the global fraud that it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kimble (4,410 comments) says:

    The Libs couldnt win the next election because they have spent the last years fumbling the ball. Abbot wont be able to bring them back from the brink.

    Seriously Australian politics is a fcking mess. No party seems to survive in Opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “the real winner is Kevin Rudd who will easily win re-election now I would say.”

    A brave prediction I reckon. The climate change issue is becoming more fluid every day.

    The more open discussion that will come from Turnbull’s demise could make many dimbulb voters sucked in by treacherous mainstream media propaganda emerge from their intellectual lethargy and realize they have been conned.

    Good on the Liberals anyway.

    Made NZ’s Nationals look even more like clueless sheep than they usually do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (4,253 comments) says:

    Abbott might have won by 1 vote but successful leaders have had that margin before. He does represent the conservative right on many issues, but there is no harm in that. I think that vote has gone unrepresented for some time. John Key is in this mold though he does not shout about it too much. I predict he will do better than one thinks with one proviso – the Liberal Party has to become united under his leadership. Turnbull was creating a civil war in the Party. Joe Hockey can easily wait and yes losing some weight will do him no harm at all. He really did not want it yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    eh?

    I had to double check I thought I was reading a post from the Standard for a second there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    Curious that the furious climate debate is splitting them, obviously not all on the right won’t accept reality. This is more like the Repubs in the US split over their direction. Labour here are different, they seem to be more united in their wilderness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bill hicks (100 comments) says:

    Abbott speaks his mind and will be a breath of fresh air for liberal revival.He does not believe in Climate change so he is a very intelligent man.Climate Fraud is getting more pathetic every day,and today the chief of the IPCC says carbon must be sucked from the air.Since carbon makes things grow this IPCC chief and climate warmers are fucking nuts… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938298.ece

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    But the real winner is Kevin Rudd who will easily win re-election now I would say.

    Bollocks, the press is in love with Krudd, but the rest of Australia have woken up to the little creep. A double-dissolution election on the ETS will be a very close run thing.

    This is the beginning of the wind-back of the AGW BS amongst liberal democracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    A double dissolution election on the ETS could be interesting. I doubt the libs could win it, but the tide is gradually turning against trading schemes v’s straight out carbon taxes.

    A trading scheme is a tax that isn’t called a tax, and where the money doesn’t end up back with the govt. A tax is more upfront, and the govt gets the money. It fits Abbott’s personality better – straight talking, easy to understand. Where the ETS fits Rudd – it’s complex and obscure, and somehow miraculously will result in prevention of warming.

    If Abbott has a policy that can be compared/contrasted to the ETS, then it will illuminate a lot of the disadvantages of the ETS. If he is just blanket opposing, then opinion polls say that is a losing position for him – more than 50% of Australians want “action.” He needs an action that is better than Rudd’s policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    This is the beginning of the wind-back of the AGW BS amongst liberal democracies.

    Because they are all going to Copenhagen while the Aus opposition (ironically Liberal) crashes and burns? Great progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dime (9,664 comments) says:

    i dont sense a lot of love in aussie for Rudd.

    climate change will hopefully be his “iraq”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    It’s truly manna from heaven. Abbott is going to be severely tested and will wind up a laughing stock. For the mathematically challenged, the climate change inspired leadership vote result means that parliament is split close to 75%/25% in support of AGW theory. Not that anyone actually wants it to be true, but sometimes unpleasant facts have to be faced up to with courage and fortitude.

    Bill Hicks, thank you for the link to an informative article. I have been in support of bio-mechanical efforts and it’s pleasing to see the concept become mainstream. And you really do need to brush up on your science. Water, too, makes things grow, but it can also drown and destroy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. s.russell (1,580 comments) says:

    Rudd would have won whoever the Liberals chose.

    The interesting thing is what this shows about voting systems. My guess is that a substantial majority would have preferred Hockey to Abbott, but Hockey’s supporters did the loyal thing and voted first for Turnbull, causing Hockey to be eliminated. The numbers suggest that few really wanted to retain Turnbull, but 15 others were so repulsed by Abbott that they backed him in the second round. In a straight Turnbull-Hockey vote, Hockey may have won 49-35. This is only a guess of course, but you’ve got to wonder if a different way of reaching a decision would have produced a very different result.

    Of course, this may actually be the best result for Hockey. Because he lost most of the mud of disloyalty will stick to Abbott. Abbott will lose the federal election and then Hockey gets a better shot three years later when more of the gloss has worn off Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Shouldn’t National Party members be selecting their NZ version of Tony Abbott in an attempt to roll the ineffective, indecisive, “a-bob-each-way”, “pass-the-buck”, “not-my-problem”, and aloof statesman John Key?

    The sooner, the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Check out Tim Blairs post

    In particular this seems worth cheering

    UPDATE III. Abbott press conference. Tough day for some of his colleagues. Humbled and daunted by what’s ahead; also exhilarated. Wounds need to be healed. Will aim to be a “consultative and collegial” leader. Pays tribute to Turnbull: “We’ve mostly been friends.”

    And now the important bit:

    On the ETS: it’s an “energy taxation scheme.” The ETS is “a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and that is just for starters.” Says “we can’t just wave it through the Parliament – it would be grossly irresponsible”.

    Says that a secret ballot has “approved this course of action.” Will oppose ETS in the Senate this week. Oppositions are “not there to get legislation through.” Says he is not frightened of an election on ETS. Says this three times.

    Defines ETS as a “great big tax to create a great big slush fund to finance bureaucracy” and characterises taxpayer waste under the Rudd government as “worse than Whitlam.” On broadband strategy: “Not even Gough Whitlam would be as crazy as that.” Promises to be “an alternative, not an echo.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. LUCY (359 comments) says:

    Good. Maybe now the Australian Liberal party will be a right leaning opposition party instead of the labourlite one it had become.

    I would not count him out. People are waking up to the alternative to Howard and Bush and they dont like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Chad C Mulligan (9 comments) says:

    Because I have been a Good Boy Santa is going to bring me a Double Dissolution for Christmas. Yippee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Funny ain’t it how all the usual dimbulb leftists here in NZ are making predictions and judgments that leave no doubt that they are much more intelligent and informed and in touch with public opinion than the strategists and managers in the Australian Liberal Party.

    They overlook the growing divide between the left (leftist politicians and their mainstream media cheerleaders and knuckle dragging academics) and the hard working man in the street who in the end is the one who will have to pay for all of this elitist bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tvb (4,253 comments) says:

    Abbott has been at the top of politics for some time and has had some very difficult portfolios – Health which he managed very well. Test him and he will pass with flying colours. But his more immediate task is to unite his party which has had its 4th leader (Howard, Nelson, Turnuill and now Abbott) in 2 years. That is the more pressing problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    redbaiter, funny how the Australian electorate not only threw out Howard’s government, but he lost his own seat as well. How often has a sitting Aus PM lost his seat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (9,664 comments) says:

    yea Howard was a failure. he was only PM 9 years or so? longer than Helen :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikh (33 comments) says:

    The ETS debate will run and run, and revelations from CRU and other sources will continue to shatter IPCC credibility. The debate will then move on to why polticians are so intent on regulating us via carbon taxes. FFS it can’t be because of a climate emergency, the planet’s cooling. It can’t be because we have to heed the IPCC consensus, it’s based on adulterated bullshit as Climategate is showing.

    So why then are rational, pragmatic politicians like John Key so keen so throw billions of dollars at it ?

    I wonder if Rodney knows ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    So why then are rational, pragmatic politicians like John Key so keen so throw billions of dollars at it ?

    Folow the money. Key was, and probably at heart still is, a merchant wanker. Who clips the ticket on all these permits? Who controls the “market” for carbon? Carbon trading is set to be the biggest traded “commoditty”, something like 100 times the value of trade in oil.

    Follow the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. redeye (638 comments) says:

    This is the Coalitions 4th leader in 2 years. Anyone who thinks they have any chance at all of winning next up please come and see me for some quality real estate deals.

    The Age reports:

    “First, the Liberals chose the least popular of the three leadership candidates on offer, according to both the Nielsen poll and the Newspoll this week. Only one in five voters prefer Abbott as Liberal leader.

    Second, the Liberals decided to support a policy that has slender public appeal.

    Only 25 per cent of Australians oppose the emissions trading scheme, according to the Herald’s Nielsen poll on Monday, while 66 per cent support the scheme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    MNIJ – you’ve just forgotten how things work in a FPP system. Howard’s electorate was relatively marginal, and he held it because he was prime minister (electorates tend to prefer PM’s, even if they don’t particularly like their party, ’cause one of their own is PM). Howard overreached with work choices and pissed off a lot of people. It cost him his electorate, and cost the liberals the election. Stupid thing was, the policy achieved nothing anyway since it was so watered down.

    As for who’s in touch with Australian politics – I doubt either of you are. And there is no particular evidence that the Libs are – there simply isn’t a majority against action on climate change.

    There may be, however, a majority for more cautious, less expensive and less crony-ist (is that a word) action on climate change. That is Abbott’s challenge. If he can put together those who want no action with those who’d like some action but rather it not hit their hip pocket quite so hard, he could easily get to a majority. Because those who want no action still will vote for the party who create the least distortions (remembering in Aus it isn’t an option to just not vote).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. lloydois (268 comments) says:

    A truly wonderful result. The least popular of the 3 now leading the party on a policy opposed by the majority of Australians!

    Just shows what happens when a party becomes detached from the realities of power. It is inconceivable that an Australian governing party would adopt a policy that would totally isolate Australia from the global political agenda, let alone be unpopular at home, especially with big business which is supposedly the Liberal Party’s base.

    They may not be happy with the climate change agenda, but business cannot afford to be deluded about political reality and the reality is business wanted this legislation passed.

    Bring on a Double Dissolution!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    PaulL, I suspect I am far more in touch with Oz politics than you.

    1. Howard held the seat for a fucking long time before he became PM

    2. The Australian House of Representatives is elected on a preferential voting system, not FPP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Iloydois:
    1. Big business is supposedly the Liberal Party’s base only in the minds of the left. The Liberal Party see their base as the battlers – the little guy. I’ll readily accept that their beliefs may not align with reality.

    2. The fact that big business want something is not necessarily a reason to support it. In the case of this particular policy, it has enormous sweetners for business in it. Someone is paying for those, and you can be pretty sure that it’s not Labour’s core constituency of beneficiaries and union members.

    Again, comparing the ETS against nothing is a losing proposition for the Libs. Comparing the ETS against a policy that doesn’t have so many blatant pork barrel exercises might very much be a winning proposition. At least a lot closer than some people think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,833 comments) says:

    Some of you socialists need to stop spitting and start counting.

    Within minutes of winning the leadership Abbott gained a 55 to 29 caucus mandate to knock over Rudd’s ETS tax bill. Within an hour of that event, Rudd deferred the bill for three months.

    That’s more leadership than anyone has seen from the Libs for a long long time.

    It only took Abbott ONE HOUR to but Rudd onto the back foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lawrence Hakiwai (119 comments) says:

    “the real winner is Kevin Rudd who will easily win re-election now I would say”

    You think so? Well when Kevin Rudd turns up at Copenhagen WITHOUT a passed ETS to boast about I doubt he’ll feel like a winner.

    I hope he calls an early election that will be fought purely on Global Warming with the CRU e-mail scandal fresh in everyone’s minds. Massive tax hike versus bogus claims of saving the planet – the whole world will be watching that campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,833 comments) says:

    Lawrence, he can’t call an early election until he has his ETS twice rejected by the Senate. It will take so long for that to happen that he’ll only gain a few months.

    If he goes early he will suffer ‘snap election’ backlash and likely lose to Abbott who will have campaigned hard on the back of the now discredited AGW alarmists and their fraudulently inspired Rudd ETS tax bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Bok2 (100 comments) says:

    Ausies have backbone, kiwis have Key. Mmmm

    When your kids are paying the Russians, while the Chinese have your manufacturing jobs,
    And while energy cost will make it impossible for pensioners to heat their holmes,

    You can say, but we were the cool country that were right on the forefront of celebrity politics…

    Wow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bok2 (100 comments) says:

    I am constantly amazed that the warmists cannot see the hypocrisy.

    If you really believe in the falsified info, sweet, but here is an idea…

    How about doing a conference by satellite? Internet? Telephone? Just think how much smaller your carbon footprint would be.

    I am refering to Copenhagen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Truly remarkable result! Why would you elect your least popular MP to be your leader?

    It gets juicier though. Fran Bailey was sick and couldn’t get there, so she wasn’t allowed to vote. Also one Joe Hockey supporter (I presume)- didn’t bother casting a ballot in the second round. He obviously didn’t like either Turnbull or Abbott.

    At least the National Party will be happy, though they aren’t then ones in the gun having rural seats. Its in the affluent urban seats (Melbourne and Sydney) where climate change and environmental issues are very big.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Lawrence Hakiwai (119 comments) says:

    Well when ever it comes, the next Australian Federal election will be a virtual referendum on global warming and I can’t wait.

    Imagine the predictions of doom, “weeks/days/hours left to save the planet” and “deniers putting your grandchildren and their grandchildren at risk”.

    up against…

    More taxes, higher prices, more controls, more bureaucracy.

    Good luck selling that to the electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Portia (204 comments) says:

    Big Bruv said: “I hope this Abbott chap makes a lot of noise about the climate change con…”

    Bill Hicks said: “[Abbott] does not believe in Climate change so he is a very intelligent man”

    Oh really?

    This is what Tony Abbott had to say about the issue in 2009 book, Battlelines

    Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.

    Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”

    According to the SMH

    This proves that Abbott is not a climate change denier but a emissions trading sceptic, a big difference.

    And according to our own Tim Groser, speaking to Chris Laidlaw on National Radio last Sunday, absolutely zero attention is now paid to climate change deniers during international negotiations.

    It’s over guys, you lost that argument. Time to move on & start engaging (constructively) in stage 2 of the discussion – ie what in the world is the world going to do about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RightNow (6,841 comments) says:

    Follow the money is good advice, MNIJ. Apart from those who stand to make money out of trading in carbon, the other big winner (besides the UN) is nuclear energy. Ironic since it has long been the enemy of greenies, now they are bedfellows.
    I suspect there are some big big players involved in the nuclear energy industry and they’re now doing very well thanks to the AGW jihadis.

    With billions in fresh tax breaks and subsidies at its disposal, and plans to build more than a dozen new power plants, things are looking up for the U.S. nuclear industry. A key player in the industry’s future is lobbyist Alex Flint, who helped steer those billions through Congress as a Senate staffer in between stints representing nuclear power companies like Exelon (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11845981/)

    Also http://stephenleahy.net/2009/10/27/environment-lavish-us-lobbying-pushes-nuclear-energy-ips-ipsnews-net/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Thanks Portia, I read that too.

    According to the Herald-Sun Abbott said about climate change-

    “Its no longer ‘crap’, I’m prepared to give the planet the benefit of the doubt”.

    Even ex- Jesuit priests show faith in scientific methods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Lawrence Hakiwai (119 comments) says:

    The more I think about it, this could be a nightmare scenario for Kevin Rudd. With Malcolm Turnbull backing an ETS both main parties would cop the blame for the economic misery saving the planet from global warming would bring.

    Now Labor (if it can get a majority) gets all the credit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    RightNow (467) Vote: 0 0 Says:

    December 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
    Follow the money is good advice, MNIJ. Apart from those who stand to make money out of trading in carbon, the other big winner (besides the UN) is nuclear energy.

    Don’t disagree with you there. And it makes me laugh when the right wing loonies (aka kiwibloggers) rave about a socialist conspiracy when the scam can be traced back to their hero, Thatcher, as she sought ways to destroy the coalminer’s union and boost nuclear power in the UK.

    Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)

    Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. The influences that enabled this are described in Figure 1 and the following paragraphs.

    Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that – although scientifically dubious – ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician.

    Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

    And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible.

    So, early in her global warming campaign – and at her personal instigation – the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1). Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.

    Much peer pressure deters scientists from damaging potential sources of research funds. There is especial pressure – loss of future career – to avoid being the first to proclaim the scientific truth of global warming and thus damage the research funding of colleagues. But failure to proclaim the scientific truth does not mean that many scientists believe in the global warming hypothesis. In 1992 – at the height of the global warming scare – Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment. Also, the Leipzig Declaration

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RightNow (6,841 comments) says:

    Maggie Thatcher eh? That’s brilliant, and hilarious. The rich will get richer, obviously, and it turns out its all part of the VRWC plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Portia

    “It’s over guys, you lost that argument.”

    It is a long, long way from being over Portia, once the climate change con has been proved to be nothing more than global fraud I hope you will be brave enough to admit that you were one of those who were sucked in?

    It’s a bit like the Y2K con, I know millions were taken in by it, but for the life of me I cannot find one single person who will admit to being taken in by the con.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    big bruv,
    You may want to tell that to Hu Jintao, Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Silva, Harper the Indians, Rudd, Key, the Japanese and just about every other world leader of any significance.
    Even if you can prove the Null Hypothesis of non association to any level of significance (if you have the scientific data) , you have to agree the power balance is slightly against you at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    The real winners will be Australia, not that idiot Rudd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Neil (572 comments) says:

    Tony Abbot has an unfortunate character weakness – he is clearly defined as a hard line Roman Catholic which is not attractive. His attitudes to social attitudes is certainly right of centre.Abbot comes from the right faction which are putting on pressure with moderate members – e.g. Scott Morrison in Cook is under challenge from RC ethnics, especially Lebanese. Many of these new right are very hard line on social issues.
    However if Rudd has to be muddied up, Abbot is a conviction politician who is not frightened to get into the trenches. Rudd is a deceptive person, his popularity is not what it seems.
    What annoys me is the ETS is resulting in an implosion within the Liberals. It is accelerating the fight between the moderates(Joe Hockey,Turnbull) and the hardline RC’s.
    If things go wrong for the Liberals look for many years of Labour rule while they are sorting themselves out.
    What a shame Costello is not there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Portia (204 comments) says:

    big bruv said: It is a long, long way from being over Portia, once the climate change con has been proved to be nothing more than global fraud I hope you will be brave enough to admit that you were one of those who were sucked in?

    The problem as I see it big bruv, is that no one can know these things for 100% sure at this point of time. And by the time we do have more certainty, we will have missed our small window of opportunity to take preventive measures – so we then have to hope like hades that you’re right.

    What we’re really dealing with is a risk management exercise, which requires us to assess the risks of two possible future scenarios:

    (a) man-made climate change is for real and we fail to act quickly enough, or at all or
    (b) man-made climate change is not for real, but we act as though it were and take drastic action.

    If scenario (b) proves to be true – which is your argument – then we will have had a lot of economic disruption unnecessarily. But, by the time we find out that we were wrong, we would have moved on and adjusted. Not without some pain, granted, but human beings are adaptive and creative so we can be sure that new industries and technologies will emerge which, hopefully (if we’re quick off the mark and don’t waste valuable time on a lost cause), NZ will be in the thick of. And, where’s the long term downside to cleaner air and water in any event?

    On the other hand, if scenario (a) plays out, we are completely and utterly doomed. Or, if not us, then our children and grandchildren will be.

    I just think preventive action of some kind or another becomes a no-brainer when viewed in those terms. The question then becomes, what exactly are we trying to achieve and what’s the best to get us there. Which then brings the focus squarely back to the efficacy of an ETS.

    PS Was Y2K really a con, or did the world act quickly enough to avert a complete disaster? I suspect it was a little of both (ie there was a genuine cause for concern that was probably beaten-up along the way), but we’ll probably never know for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. emmess (1,396 comments) says:

    Actually MNIJ is right and it surprises me that the left are not more suspicious
    It did begin as a capitalist plot but it grew way out of control
    And that is why people like Nigel Lawson and Christopher Monckton know what they are talking about because they when it all begun

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen (711) 1 15 Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    I think that’s my best -ve karma ever! Thanks guys.

    It’s confirmation that I’m on the right track.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @emmess 5:26 pm

    Ah, yes, the Loopy Lords. Lawson and Monckton. Uncle and nephew, isn’t it?

    Their class identity would encourage them to challenge the climate change consensus. But what scientific credentials do either of them have to do so?

    Absolutely none. Potty peers who spew rhetoric and make up the evidence and but have no ability to do any research of their own. And even though they are filthy rich and could afford to commission research from suitably qualified climate scientists, they don’t.

    Wonder why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    I just think preventive action of some kind or another becomes a no-brainer when viewed in those terms. The question then becomes, what exactly are we trying to achieve and what’s the best to get us there. Which then brings the focus squarely back to the efficacy of an ETS.

    And just what “preventative action” would you prescribe?

    The ETS? The massive transfer of wealth from the productive – a transfer designed if you think about it deeply enough to make them less productive.

    And where does the money go? Well some of that is still a mystery but some isn’t – Al Gore for example has already increased his wealth many fold through this scam.

    And does Al Gore live the life of frugality he demands of us the plebeians?

    Hell no – Al Gore’s emissions probably exceed those of all those who comment here combined with his mansions, private jets and all.

    And Al Gore is not the only prophet profiteering from this alarmism – goodness me no and the profligacy of these people is something to behold.

    What you should be asking is if emissions are so dangerous to our future wellbeing why are the Global Elite all congregating in Copenhagen an exercise in profligate emitting which most surely puts our humble dairy farmers to shame.

    And lets not even start on other problems, far simpler in nature, that Governments have tried to tackle and failed spectacularly at best and often exacerbated.

    The War on Drugs springs to mind

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    emmess

    Ah, Monckton

    Really, is that the best you can do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Obviously Lord Monckton is on the right track if the mention of his name is getting these types of responses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    Definitely on the “right” track, but far from on the right track Banana Llama.

    He has no understanding of the science, and just makes it up and tells lies as he goes. Read this – brilliant parody by Gareth Renowden – and read the info in the links from it.

    Yes, I know it’s a lot of information for neo-cons who have only ever read Rand and Hayek and therefore believe the market will take care of it all to take in in one evening, but give it a go. Hopefully some of you won’t be back till tomorrow, and may have a better understanding when you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. bill hicks (100 comments) says:

    luc hansen or fuc hansen the last laugh will be on you… http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3115643/Cool-your-hopes-for-summer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Toad

    Re Climate change.

    1. Where is the PROOF?

    2. How will wealth transfer ‘cure’ climate change?

    Answer those questions for me and I will be convinced that what you say is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (858 comments) says:

    welcome home David.

    Now are you actually going to blog on the climategate scandal. It seems to have taken down Rudd’s ETS as its first victim. (to be fair Malcolm T was really the first victim)

    But even the innocent explanations for the behaviour of Mann, Reid et al are somewhat shameful.

    Hiding data, dodgy record keeping, conspiring to ostracise “denialist” enemies, the works. A great Thriller in the offing -

    “when Beards attack!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    Three things:
    First, great to see an Opposition which can work out how to oppose, and how to hold to ones beliefs to get to a point which is important to you – Lefties, maybe you need to whisper this in Goff’s pink and shell like.
    Second: Great to see Aussie throw a spanner in the self admiration of the Weather Loonies.
    Third: What a great Idea for Nick the Drip to push through the NZ ETS last week. As usual we are left in the open a mile ahead of the rest. Thanks Nick! And it was all for a bucket of vomit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    747Kevin will have to get his shit together and call an early election because the longer he believes he is bullet proof the more the voters will see what a treacherous sack of shit his party is going to drop on Auss. I hope he takes heaps of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Australia’s already fucked with the massive debt it’s incurred through the failed Kruddcash programme. Liberals won’t be able to save it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Have to feel sorry for Rudd…. hanging his head and flying off to Climatehagen without an ETS trophy.

    He’ll be the laughingstock of the chardonnay socialist leaders.

    I fear the jokes over port and cigars will be too much for his delicate disposition such that he’ll quietly sneak back to his 5-star each evening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @getstaffed 8:53 pm

    Fuck, I wish Key had flown off to Copenhagen without a climate change policy too.

    But he’s not flying there, and if he did, he’s got a fucked policy that will do nothing to mitigate emissions, thanks to the sell-out leadership of the Maori Party.

    Funnily enough, that’s why Hone wasn’t at Parliament last week – not punishment for the “white mofo” email, but because the Government could not afford him to vote against the ETS travesty. If he had been there, and brought Rahui Katene, who was also strongly opposed to the legislation, with him it would have gone down in a screaming heap.

    Hone stayed away – I guess to preserve party unity and regroup to fight another day. Much as I respect him, I’m not sure it was the right call.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    It is inconceivable that an Australian governing party would adopt a policy that would totally isolate Australia from the global political agenda,

    Worldwide redistribution of wealth and the death of Western prosperity? That is a good thing.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the loony left!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. tvb (4,253 comments) says:

    Joe Hockey did not want the Leadership – yet. So he stayed “loyal” backed climate change and forced a vote on the climate change issue. So the Liberals go into the election opposed to ETS to provide a clear contrast to Rudd. Abbott represents a clear contrast to Rudd on a number of other things as well. And Abbott has united the opposition. Not too bad at all. Rudd may be favorite to win but do not underestimate all those second Labour preferences going to Abbott – especially the conservative catholic vote. I predict a much closer contest than what appears now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Turnbull was a leftist who posed as a rightist. Posturing as an alternative to socialism whilst brazenly doing the work of the socialists. He had to go, as such traitors need to go all over the western world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Abbot is doing well this morning. He’s very clearly shifting the debate from where the media like it (should we do something or shouldn’t we) to where he can get a lot of traction – what should we do.

    He’s pointing out that the Australian ETS is a shambles, it pays off special interests, it kicks in before the rest of the world, it will destroy jobs and wealth.

    Toad, all going well he’d align with the Greens on a carbon tax (same as National/ACT/Greens should have done in NZ) and then have a policy that would give Labour real trouble in an election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    So I guess the working tax group will be working all Christmas now that the Aussies have kicked their ETS in the guts. I bet Shonkey and his fallow travelers are spewing. No more tax cuts kids. Shonkey will now have to readjust his plans as he knows he will have to alter our ETS taxes as Aussie is no longer in the picture. I bet tax cuts are off till they figure out another way to fleece us to pay for tax cuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. coge (181 comments) says:

    Abbott has made his own luck. Hence Rudd’s plane breaking down in DC, & having to spend an extra night over there. This give Abbott one more day in the media spotlight, to start getting his message across. Rudd will be aware of this & might even pop an artery over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,833 comments) says:

    The CRU’s chief propagandist has been stood down pending an independent investigation. It’s getting better and better for the Abbott and the Libs. DPF’s famous last words might be “But the real winner is Kevin Rudd who will easily win re-election now I would say.”

    Thanks God Costello gave the game away. Can you imagine the bill boards?

    BTW I goofed on the Rudd reversal within one hour. Misread the article in question. The deferall by Rudd happened some months a go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. dime (9,664 comments) says:

    heh things must be getting bad. every where i look online, leftists are telling me “its over” “the science is settled”.

    in terms of trade – you do need to be seen to be doing something about climate change “oh fuck yeah, we are gonna have an ETS” “oh no, its been delayed again by 2 years, we are getting one though”

    sad thing is leftists, you cant keep a scam going long enough to trick the world into having a giant ETS or whatever other form of socialism you want.

    there has been a huge change in NZ over the last 18 months. Back then we had a lot of demand for “eco-friendly” products. customers talking about their global footprint blah blah. its all died. no one talks about it anymore.

    people in the modern world get bored quickly.

    if you want change, ya need to take baby steps. con everyone, get em worked up, pass a small law. then start on the next commie thing you want to implement.

    in 2020, “Global Warming aka man made climate change” will be forgotten. just like global cooling in the 70′s. socialists will find something even more wacky and new ways to try and tax us/redistribute wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Gulag (162 comments) says:

    Was there as much scrutiny of Rudd and his religion as there is of Abbot and his or are the rules different?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Talking about leaders, where is our “fearless” and “decisive” Prime Minister these days? Has anyone seen Neville Key lately?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. redeye (638 comments) says:

    Abbotts 7:30 report interview is here http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759158.htm

    Plenty of amunition for Rudd I’d suggest.

    Apparently Tony believes in global warming, just not enamoured with Labours method of attending to it. Even though it’s apparently almost identical to Howard’s (which Tony supported).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. dime (9,664 comments) says:

    LONDON (AP) – Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

    hehe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Alistair Miller (557 comments) says:

    This is the best possible outcome for the Lbs. They’ve been a basket case since the 2008 pasting, and because of Howard’s total lack of belief that he would ever leave the leadership other than in a box, he did no succession planning and there has thus been a total vacuum of leadership. Turnbull actually had some very good points, but he was fool to make ETS a leadership issue. The Lib/Nat coalition was always going to take a bath in the 2010/2011 election. This way, Abbott can drag the party room back to the right and can delay the vote on the ETS. He will definitely not be the Australian PM, and I suspect everyone (including him) knows it. He will get smashed by KRudd and will then step down or get rolled to make way for Joe Hockey. The next realistic chance the Coalition will have for electoral victory will be 2013/2014, and putting Hockey in before the 2010/2011 election will taint his chances in 2013/14. And the best thing of all in all this: NO ETS IN AUSTRALIA (at least for now).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. backster (2,123 comments) says:

    bChapman said “At least the National Party will be happy, though they aren’t then ones in the gun having rural seats. Its in the affluent urban seats (Melbourne and Sydney) where climate change and environmental issues are very big.

    A similar situation in NZ where in the 05 Clark/Liabour redwash National still won all the rural seats and almost none of the Urban ones, yet National have endorsed the CLARK idiocy of including Agriculture, virtually ensuring the ruination of many of their most loyal supporters,(and the Nation). John KEY should show the same respect for his members as ABBOTT and hold a secret ballot to decide whether they believe in global warming or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    Liberal MPs are going to push Abbott to press for nuclear power as the way for clean green energy, plus of course Australia has the world’s biggest reserves of uranium (or are they the second biggest?).

    Way to go!

    Link:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/tony-abbott-facing-push-by-liberal-mps-to-consider-nuclear-energy-as-alternative-to-ets/story-e6frgczf-1225806030892

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Jack5: agree. Fantastic option, and one overdue in Aus by my reckoning.

    What Australia has lots of is sun-burnt land and uranium. (Actually, they have lots of coal too, but that’s not so useful in this discussion).

    Nuclear is 65% of France’s power, it could be in Aus too. And all that land gives them somewhere to put the waste – if they blend the waste with the dirt the originally dug it up from, the resultant product is about as radioactive as what they first dug up. So they can just put it back where they found it.

    Solar isn’t really economic yet, but when it is Australia has a lot of places to put solar units.

    Lucky country indeed!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    if they blend the waste with the dirt the originally dug it up from, the resultant product is about as radioactive as what they first dug up.

    That’s a new one! Isn’t the waste product often a lot more potent? And i assume it’s a little more scientific than ‘put it in a giant blender then bung it underground’…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Gulag (162 comments) says:

    Poll in The Australian
    Do you think Tony Abbott can unite the Liberal Party and lead it to the next election?

    * Yes 43.15% (620 votes)
    * No 51.36% (738 votes)
    * Unsure 5.5% (79 votes)

    Total votes: 1437

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    stephen: to be honest, I’m not sure it matters all that much – Australia’s a bloody big country. Apparently all the high level nuclear waste created to date by all the UK’s nuclear reactors would about fill a normal lounge room.

    Then, of course, there’s the thorium fuel cycle: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    Gulag, that poll is as scientific as that which emanates from CRU/GISS/IPCC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.