Skip to content

Public Want A Referendum On Net Zero

October 27, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

Poll after poll has purportedly shown that the public is in favour climate action.

Until they find out how much it is going to cost them anyway!

  image

The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.

Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.

When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.

The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/26/britons-want-referendum-no-10s-net-zero-plans-next-general-election/

 

When even Lib Dim voters want a referendum, the green agenda must be in big trouble!

37 Comments
  1. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 27, 2021 9:58 am

    I’m very wary of a referendum given the government’s utter lies last time and about Net Zero now. And there’s no organisation with a suitable figurehead compared with Brexit. It would be far too easy for the government (supported by every other party) to swamp the electorate with misleading information.

    Moreover, it reinforces the Tyranny of the Majority, allowing people to believe that 50.1% can impose anything they like on the rest. That is necessary for out or in choices like the EU but not for a wide-ranging series of choices people can make for themselves.

    • Mad Mike permalink
      October 27, 2021 10:45 am

      Very dangerous at the moment as the general public are only just being told what it would mean to their pockets and comfort. Give it a year or so and it might be a fairer referendum.

    • Robert Jones permalink
      October 27, 2021 11:41 am

      Winning a referendum with a 50.1% vote is perfectly reasonable and does not constitute an outcome that can or should be challenged. Trust the people!

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 27, 2021 12:15 pm

      I’m with Phoenix44 100%. Without judging either side in this debate very few of us are sufficiently well-informed on the facts and the long-term implications to make a reliable judgment — either way.
      There has been far too much special pleading, selective use of data, fundamental dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-serving assertions unsupported by facts (mostly but not entirely by the pro-climate action lobby) for a reliable outcome to any public consultation.
      I for one do not wish to live in a country where the response to changes in the climate are determined by which vested interest shouts the loudest.
      Nobody bar the extremists and the gullible genuinely believes that there is a climate “crisis”. If action is needed to adapt the human race is well capable if doing that as it has done for millennia. It is time we stopped listening to those with a personal or political axe to grind, desperate to get their before Mother Nature proves them wrong and concentrated on what the facts are telling us, not the spin.
      And I’m sorry, Robert, but this is not an election campaign where you can change your mind in five years time. This is a binary choice: your 50.1% will either make the right decision or the wrong decision and they (and most of us) don’t in reality have a clue which! It’s not a situation we can afford to put ourselves in.

    • Thomas Carr permalink
      October 27, 2021 12:40 pm

      So we have to indulge the tyranny of the minority . I mean indulge or how else would you describe the treatment of the superannuated and under-employed in Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain .

  2. Roderic Smith permalink
    October 27, 2021 9:58 am

    Too soon for this – far too many people are still drifting along on the group-think wave. People are just starting to realise how expensive and unrealistic net zero actually is. Give it a couple of years and the tide will have turned.

  3. Ian Magness permalink
    October 27, 2021 9:59 am

    The Lim Dems will want a referendum because, like Cameron with Brexit, they are convinced they will win it. Further, they know they will have the government and media (and UN and EU for that matter) backing to ensure the “correct” result. Be careful what you wish for. If sceptics get a referendum and then lose, it’ll put the whole sceptic cause back 20 years.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 27, 2021 1:49 pm

      Yes, Call Me Dave expected to win the referendum but he had to hold it because he had already shown he was untrustworthy, having dropped one he proposed earlier he could not get away with it twice. He also firmly believed he would not win the election and therefore have to deliver on his promise. As we saw before, he could always hide behind being in the Liberal coalition as so say it was not possible. The promise to hold a referendum was to head off a growing threat of UKIP. In the previous election many missed that in long term Tory seats like by Surrey ones I have lived in while they one with bigger majorities the big swing in votes was to UKIP.

  4. TrevorC permalink
    October 27, 2021 10:00 am

    If there is a referendum there is no way there will be a balanced discussion. The authorities, media etc will never explain the true costs of net zero. All we will hear will be tales of how cheap renewable energy is (although it will need endless subsidies), how many tens of thousands of jobs will be created (most likely in China!) and if we do not tackle climate change we are all going to die in ten years time. Anyone who says anything different will be branded a ‘denier’.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 27, 2021 2:34 pm

      I understand that the likes of Facebook have decided to prevent any postings of a denier nature. This would surely disadvantage those arguing against NZC.

  5. dave permalink
    October 27, 2021 10:08 am

    But what would be the question? Brexit and Scottish Independence were crystal clear issues, by comparison.

    Ideally, the Government should present a detailed, clear plan, but not argue for or against it. Then the Referendum should be Yes or No; with 50% of the eligible population actually turning out and voting Yes as the criterion for acceptance. That would require an honest Establishment; and so, not going to happen any time soon.

    Interesting long range weather forecast here:

    https://mkweather.com/winter-2021-2022-forecast-for-europe-early-extreme-arctic-and-siberian-blasts-and-blizzards-late-dry-and-very-warm-conditions/

    • RichardW permalink
      October 27, 2021 10:14 am

      Very different results would come from different questions, e.g.:

      Should we save the planet? vs
      Should the UK Government bankrupt the country to generate a miniscule reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions?

    • dave permalink
      October 27, 2021 10:14 am

      I agree of course that 50.1% of the people should not be able to impose their views on the other 49.9%; but a Referendum requiring that is better than the present situation, where perhaps 10% of the people are imposing their views by pretending they are speaking for everybody.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 27, 2021 1:44 pm

      Very true Dave, but as we saw with the EU Referendum, the government and many other organisations such as the City of London Corporation broke the law by taking the remainer side. Call Me Dave misused £9m of taxpayers’ money to send us all his propaganda brochure. Ironically it was all the remainer hectoring that won us the vote as opposed to the abject Tory-controlled VoteLeave.

    • Vernon E permalink
      October 27, 2021 3:38 pm

      And just as important as the question will bre the age of the participants. Twelve or less? The young will claim that its their future and they are entitled to decide it. No, a referendum would be disastrous in every respect.

  6. Ray Sanders permalink
    October 27, 2021 10:14 am

    “When even Lib Dim voters want a referendum,” Well even if they agreed to one ,they would refuse to honour the result if (or rather when) it went against them. After all they do rather have form on referendums – from their 2010 manifesto;-
    “The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”

  7. David Calder permalink
    October 27, 2021 10:55 am

    Too soon, we need to get the figurehead mentioned above and wait for some grid collapse without lockdown media fakery. A tall order. Net zero is not ‘one thing’ anyway. This is dynamite, and we will end up blowing more than the doors off!!!

  8. GeoffB permalink
    October 27, 2021 11:19 am

    NO, The greens are playing poker, have one now and there is a good chance that the greens will win, and thats it for our resistance, Wait until there has been a lot more pain, rising costs and power outs, food shortages and general discontent. If protests do not occur I will be surprised.

  9. William Birch permalink
    October 27, 2021 11:22 am

    I don’t think we need a referendum although in principle i am very much in favour of the Swiss system of Government. I think let these ludicrous polices just “play out”. when the UK electors see that all their costs are going up and their standard of living is going down, meanwhile China, Russia and India don’t give a dam about Net Zero they will realise it has all be a “globalist hoax” and a play by big city money to squeeze huge “green subsidies” out of the rest of us.. Cometh the hour cometh the man (or woman)? When the time is right the electors will find a leader, very much like Farage with Brexit. If not the coming election then the one after.

  10. Jack Broughton permalink
    October 27, 2021 11:57 am

    The Swiss referendum and Brexit show that the people have more real sense than the wokes-who-rule. The information about the whole mathematical model sham would come-out as would the implications on everyday life in the UK.

    What is most worrying about the western world leaderships’ blind belief is that it must logically lead to a carbon-war with the eastern world: if the holy-models were correct, they would have to save us all from the devils brew that is CO2. It looks as though 1984 is closer than we thought.

  11. cookers52 permalink
    October 27, 2021 12:01 pm

    A referendum on an unachievable policy strategy.! What’s the point of that?
    There is no viable plan.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 27, 2021 1:25 pm

      How can anyone vote on achieving Net zero (or how much it will cost) when the amount of CO2 required to be removed from the atmosphere has not been quantified? Most people have no idea what Net zero means. Obviously, politicians don’t either.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        October 27, 2021 2:37 pm

        BL. I bet that if asked many of the XR loonies would argue for zero CO2 in the atmosphere.

  12. richardw permalink
    October 27, 2021 12:48 pm

    I am not optimistic about the outcome of a referendum. The governments media machine together with the mainstream media can be relied upon to promote the net zero case, while the more sceptical case will be suppressed.

    • Bloke down the pub permalink
      October 27, 2021 2:27 pm

      That sounds familiar, where have I heard of that problem with referenda before?

  13. Tinny permalink
    October 27, 2021 1:08 pm

    We should definitely start the campaign for a referendum.
    Without one, we are stuck with the certainty of net zero, rather than the possibility of stopping it in its tracks via a referendum.

    Start campaigning now. It will take years and election losses before it is actually granted.

    • George Lawson permalink
      October 29, 2021 1:59 pm

      A referendum would be quite useless since that would rely on balanced debate and listening to the views of the sceptics. As the sceptics have been locked out of any discussion on the subject for the past few years, The fanatics would win easily over the masses of gullible public.

      • George Lawson permalink
        October 29, 2021 2:03 pm

        Sorry. ‘the fanatics would win easily with the support of the gullible masses’

      • David Pounder permalink
        October 29, 2021 5:39 pm

        A sad state of affairs but I agree 100%. It seems we have to go through the pain barrier before the masses finally see sense.

  14. David Pounder permalink
    October 27, 2021 1:53 pm

    Great points discussed in the comments! In my view, the advantage of a referendum is to enable the general populace to be allowed to hear both sides of the argument and for the proponents of net zero to answer key questions. This however is a pipe dream as the government will ensure that the truth is silenced and a large percentage of the population lacks the scientific understanding to make logical decisions. I agree with the ‘wait and see’ approach and let people come to their conclusions based upon policy failures, rising costs, cooling weather, yet more failed predictions, rising costs of energy — etc. There is enough here to turn Johnson’s insane beliefs and net zero dream into a political nightmare. The more sensible members of his party are showing signs of rebellion already. Don’t risk a USA ‘election’ referendum – let nature and reality do the work for us.

  15. Bloke down the pub permalink
    October 27, 2021 2:25 pm

    In the same way that Lib-Dems were happy to have a referendum on Brexit, because they assumed the British people were all good Europeans like them, they’re also willing to have a referendum on net zero. The risk we all face when we live in echo chambers is believing there are no other opinions, present company included.

    • David Calder permalink
      October 27, 2021 3:32 pm

      The other side seldom (never?) take up an opportunity for open debate, cos they would lose horribly.

    • dave permalink
      October 27, 2021 4:42 pm

      “…present company included…”

      I do not think that is fair. Almost everybody who comments here seems to be aware, in considerable detail, of the arguments of our over-mighty Intelligentsia, as those views are
      unavoidable. They are rammed down our throats, or dinned into our ears, every hour on the hour. And being fair minded we tend to engage with those arguments, at least privately, just in case a miracle should happen and something which is not simply ignorant or abusive is found in them.

      Take today’s Budget and the background official documents for it. On and on, propaganda about decarbonization [sic] and advertising of Green fantasies. Five billion for cycle paths. Forsooth!

      This is clearly a reckless, pre-election, goodies-and-sweeties, Budget. I am reminded of the “dash for growth” under Heath. Assuming the Conservatives [sic] get back in, Johnson will treat it as being equivalent to a Referendum on Carrie’s plan, and double down on everything.

  16. It doesn't add up... permalink
    October 27, 2021 3:57 pm

    What we really need is maximum pressure for disclosure of the cost and consequences of net zero policy, and revealing the utter inadequacy of the work that pretends that net zero is either achievable or affordable. Only once that message is well understood can you hope to have a vote on it. I think that GWPF understand this, and their Netzerowatch campaign is the right approach.

    • Jordan permalink
      October 29, 2021 8:46 pm

      Thanks Niall. Good job, I say.
      I spotted your petition this evening and have signed it. Now sending the link to family and friends to encourage them to do so too. They all know where I stand as they have to listen to me, so I’m hopeful they will oblige.

    • Matt Dalby permalink
      October 30, 2021 6:56 pm

      I’ve signed the petition, even though I think the whole petition idea is a scam designed to make it look like the government is listening to the public. Even if a petition is selected for debate I’m not aware of any debate that has then led to a change in government policy.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: