Before David Cameron became Tory leader you could not imagine that the party
would campaign for higher taxes targeted at the middle classes. But last
week it committed itself to a levy on frequent flyers. Equally, none of
Cameron’s predecessors from John Major to Michael Howard would have looked
convincing on a bicycle or hugging a husky.
The Conservative party’s new stance on the environment has knocked the breath
out of opponents. The transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, accused
Cameron of being “interested in headlines”, thereby unwittingly putting his
finger on the central point. The Tories are majoring on climate change not
just because they think there are votes in it, but also because it
challenges the public’s assumptions about the party. The slogan could be:
“If you thought you knew the Conservatives, look again.”
Tory modernisers have fretted that the party has no clause 4, referring to
Tony Blair’s symbolic act in abolishing the commitment to nationalisation
that was enshrined in Labour’s constitution. Once he had junked it, you had
to believe that the party really had become new Labour. A few months ago it
was doubted whether Cameron was serious about greenery. He would balk at
introducing tough fiscal measures, his critics predicted. That challenge
suited Cameron perfectly. With last week’s tax announcements, he confirmed
that the party is new Conservative in all but name.
So those analysts who chortle that Cameron has miscalculated because the
public is not really anxious to pay more for a greener planet, miss the
point. The electoral dividend he seeks is only partly accounted for by
voters who might switch to him because they care about the environment. His
broader message — that the Tories are now worth another look — brings back
into play millions of voters beyond the party’s reach since 1992.
But even if it were just about winning the green vote, Cameron’s strategy is
cleverer than it looks. To overhaul Labour at the next election is a
Herculean task — it has a 157-seat advantage over the Tories. But it will be
made easier if the Conservatives can take 20 or 30 seats off the Liberal
Democrats, led by the ineffectual Sir Menzies Campbell. Many Lib Dem voters
are Conservative types who for two decades have been repelled by the Tory
party’s hard edges. They are there for the wooing. On Friday evening
Richmond-upon-Thames Tories duly chose the renowned envi-ronmental
campaigner Zac Goldsmith as their election candidate, hoping to topple a
4,000 Lib Dem majority.
It was striking, too, that while Gordon Brown talked earnestly last week about
the virtues of low-energy light bulbs, Cameron spoke of endangered species.
By associating himself with the plight of Bengal tigers and Rwandan
gorillas, Cameron creates a hotline to the nation’s children, the route to
the votes of mothers and teachers, two groups the Tories would love to win
over. The chancellor, I suspect, would be no more convincing on Arctic polar
bears than he was on Arctic Monkeys.
So there is no mystery about why Cameron has adopted his policy positions. The
only puzzle — one for historians — is why for a decade or more the
Conservatives achieved electoral disaster by appearing hostile to the planet
(as well as to public servants, single mothers, gays, ethnic minorities and
the health service). Cameron’s policy is entirely rational, meaning that he
understands the self-interest of his party, whereas William Hague, Iain
Duncan Smith and Howard did not.
Brown’s posture is equally rational. While voters in my old seat of Kensington
and Chelsea may be looking forward to forking out for hybrid-fuelled cars
when they next change the family fleet, Brown’s electors in my grandfather’s
home town of Kirkcaldy probably want the cheapest possible car journey to
work. It is still partly true that the Tories represent the middle class and
Labour the working class. Enthusiasm for tackling climate change is often
proportionate to income.
Perhaps Brown is, nonetheless, a tad too cautious. He has had searing
experiences with “green” taxes. In 1999 he had to abandon the fuel duty
escalator (introduced, surprisingly, by the Tories) which raised petrol and
diesel prices by 6% more than inflation each year. In 2000, when oil prices
were little more than $30 a barrel, protesters against fuel costs blockaded
ports and refineries.
Incidentally, I was shadow chancellor at the time and opposed the shadow
cabinet’s wish to commit a future Conservative government to cut fuel
duties. I was outvoted and the party made the foolish populist pledge.
Cameron has forced the Tories to grow up.
Despite Brown’s caution, the government last week took a step hailed by some
as historic. The Climate Change Bill will supposedly commit governments to
deliver a 60% reduction in the nation’s carbon emissions by 2050. Time will
tell whether it proves historic. Even the first judgment of whether a
government is in breach of its target will not be made until 2012.
Even so, it is clear that British politics has suddenly shifted on climate
change. Perhaps because the economy seems to run itself and because the
problems of education and health are intractable, politicians are rushing
eagerly into environment policies. David Miliband, for the government, is
every bit as zealous as Cameron.
Oddly, both parties find themselves philosophically at home on this green
terrain. Labour obviously feels comfortable taxing and directing. But we
should not forget that the Conservatives (since they came under the
influence of Milton Friedman) love to create markets where they do not yet
exist. During the Thatcher years they yearned to establish the economic cost
of things that were not transparently priced, such as driving on roads. Tory
think tanks were gurgling excitedly about road pricing 30 years ago.
In another way, too, the Tories could end up sounding like Margaret Thatcher
in opposition. The promise on which she was elected in 1979 was not to cut
tax but to transfer the burden from direct to indirect revenues. Her first
large cut in income tax was matched by nearly doubling the rate of Vat,
which was raised again in order to cut council tax. Cameron has been anxious
not to promise tax cuts. But if he continues to pile up commitments to green
levies he will be obliged to promise offsets on the taxation of incomes.
So far, so regressive: indirect taxes bear disproportionately on those with
low incomes, and cuts in income tax benefit the richest most. But there is
an embryonic idea that could change all that, and both Miliband and Cameron
are already toying with it.
If there are to be national emission limits, there has to be carbon trading.
Indeed there already is, between companies. Those who want to pollute more
have to pay to buy permits from those who have learnt to pollute less.
But what if the scheme were extended to individuals? Every citizen would
receive free an equal “carbon” allowance for travel. In that case, the
Sunday Times columnist (for example) wanting to take his umpteenth business
class transatlantic flight this year would be forced to buy credits from
those who had found no use for theirs. Sellers might include the poor, young
families and retired people, and the price they could command for the
credits might soar. People who apparently had nothing might suddenly find
that they owned something of real value. The Tories have long searched for a
modern-day equivalent of council house sales. Could this be it — the way to
reconnect with the working classes and ultimately render them bourgeois?
Last week’s flurry of green promises from Labour and Conservative must have
delighted lobby groups such as Friends of the Earth, who have so long toiled
in the wilderness. If so, they should prepare for defeat. The massive
ambition of reducing carbon emissions by 60% could only be achieved by a
crash programme of building nuclear power stations. The sooner Brown and
Cameron admit it, the faster we can get on with reversing climate change.
michael.portillo@sunday-times.co.uk
Following on from Kevin Law, some of which I agree with, perhaps eco-friendly politicians, riders of the consensus bandwagon, and innocent readers who trust the pols and experts to be accurate and tell the truth, should hit the net with "Global Warming swindle" and "Global warming dissenters", and similar phrases, read and think very carefully for a couple of hours, and then start to spread the word that anthropogenic/forced Global warming is a myth. The honest science is catching up with the gravy train hype and in a very few years we'll be looking back, as we now do to the 70s threat of Global cooling, and wondering what it was all about, why so many fell for it, and why politicians, bureaucrats and academics seemed so eager to embrace it - small hint: follow the money, and that isn't private money. Indirectly it is of course, as it comes from the innocent taxpayer. Global warming is occurring at present, but to a very small degree, and is not driven by human activity. Check it out
jim hogg BSc Hons, Paisley, Scotland
Poor old Portillo must be as bemused as I am, to see his column converted into a battleground for some deeply impenetrable, internecine German feud.
The Conservatives should pay very close attention to new developments in solar power technology, which promise an economic breakthrough and might obviate the need for the nuclear option.
As for 'Friends of the Earth' and 'Greenpeace', one of the benefits of the new "greenery", is that these corrupt, stunt ridden and shadowy organisations have been shown up for what they are - irredeemably Luddite, looney and out of time.
James Maynard, Cranbrook, UK
Please feel free to go. WE never wanted you in the first place. As is shown here, from all the whingeing and moaning, the U.K has only been out to cause trouble from day one.
A foot stamping screaming till they're sick child unless they get their own way.
GO! And as soon as possible. We will throw the biggest leaving party of all time to celebrate your pathetic little lands demise.
THE U.K, HOWEVER, WILL NOT BE INVITED.
Ragnar Vagmornasson von Brandenburg-Preußen, Berlin , Preussen/Germany
*correction*
Joschka Fischer was foreign secretary,Otto Schilly was home secretary.
ewald widiner, shanghai, china
Ragnor,
the German Green's are the fall out of the Baader Meinhof terrorist Group and some sentenced by Court like Stroebele, Green Member of parliament now ,but there Lawyer those days, like Schilly ,there Lawyer too, but foreign secretary under Schroeder who changed from the Greens to SPD ,all leftwing throughout who organized Palestinian training camps and meetings in Yemen for example ,or killings of German banker(Herrhausen) and industrialists (Schleyer)or federal Court President (Buback whose murder weapon was found coincidently in the VW car of Joschka Fisher) and sorry many others too!
Take French- German and Green EU parliamentarian Daniel Cohen Bendit, he wants “no penalties for pedophiles”, could go on forever....
If you like that, bee there guest and dream on, but please keep the UK an independent and free country within the EU, the social and green agenda is only a smokescreen for a new Stalinist state, thanks!!!
ewald widiner, shanghai, china
"I know of many expats who will not vote conservative now as it not only affects their multi visits to the UK ...D Crossingham, Birmingham, England"
I spent 35 years trying to escape from that joke of a rock in the Atlantic. What the HEL makes you think We would want to go BACK?
Much better to sit and watch the comedy from a safe shore.
Ragnar Vagmornasson von Brandenburg-Preußen, Berlin , Preussen/Germany
Don't understand the comment about the Tories proposed tax on frequent flyers bringing in more votes as they have now lost my vote after fourty years and also the votes of all my family and friends.
I know of many expats who will not vote conservative now as it not only affects their multi visits to the UK and also the friends and family who visit them every year will not be voting Conservative either.
If taxing frequent flyers was the answer to CO2 emissions then nobody would mind but we all know it isnt.
Think again on that one.
D Crossingham, Birmingham, England
"Further ; Preussen was desolved on 25th.feb.1947 "
NOT for real Prussians it was not.
Nor will it be after the 2009 vote on bringing it back.
As to German Greens. They go9t into power under their own steam. Showing that green issues ARE important to the German public.
Unlike the British public, who painfully obviously could not care less if it means having to spend an extra couple of cents per week.
Ragnar Vagmornasson von Brandenburg-Preußen, Berlin , Preussen/Germany
@Ragnar,
perhaps "Green" in the free world is at the heart of all parties and people, not highjackt as in Germany to clime the gravy train to political power ,exercised by old leftwing and jobless students.
Further ; Preussen was desolved on 25th.feb.1947
ewald widiner, shanghai, china
I love the idea of being able to sell my carbon miles, which I have no interest in using. It is a really morally interesting to choose between cash and the right to pollute
Minum, London,
If "green issues" are as important to the public as these "leaders" would seem to like us to think they are, then why does the "Green party" have severe difficulty in even keeping their deposit in every election the fight in?
Ragnar Vagmornasson, Berlin, Preussen/Germany
What a depressing article! The Conservatives wanting to penalise us for travelling not only on the planes but on the roads (the think-tanks were wrong on that one 30 years ago, just as they are today); Mr Portillo apparently of the opinion that 'green taxes' will actually do something to achieve their stated aim; and all of us being softened up for the introduction of a personal carbon tariff - which seems to me as great an affront on liberty as ID cards and 'Galileo' road-pricing.
There is indeed an issue we need to address, but carbon is only a part of it. That issue is resources, be they fish, coal, oil, timber, grain. The most pressing of these is oil at the mo - give it 50 years and there will be precious little left; technology is needed, along with thrift! But the pols don't trust us with that info so we're fed this carbon nonsense which, if you notice, is really all about conservation of wider resources - but charging us extra to conserve! Just my two-penn'orth of course...
Adam Neilson, Birmingham,
"Many Lib Dem voters are conservative types .. there for the wooing."
Many Conservatives are liberal types who value their civil rights, freedoms and privacy above all else. Only the Lib Dems and Liberty campaign consistently for those conservative values, and I respect them for it.
Some lifelong Tories even flirt with the idea of voting LibDem for the first time, or joining the 40% who voted "none of the above" at the last 2 elections.
The Notting Hill boys correctly identified the need to get Consevatives listened to again. Dramatic, unexpected gestures succeeded in that - the media now listens and reports more fairly. But real people are underwhelmed, or worse, angry.
A tory environmentalist since before DC was born, I'm wildly unimpressed by his statist nonsense. Searching for that mystical place - the centre ground, inhabited by nobody outside politcs and the media - DC has fallen into the hole that is the Extremist Centre at the very time LibDems are moving away from it.
Richard Doran, Wrotham, Kent
Yes, I'm one of those considering what would have been unthinkable until a few months ago - voting Tory. Recent "green" ideas from David Cameron strike me as more practical and easier to understand than those from elsewhere - such as the one for a tax on air travel with a tax-free flight for everyone each year, which should be ample for all but the greedy. I hope he now embraces those Thatcher-era ideas Michael Portillo mentions, for a market in the use of road space. Contrary to Dr Law's posting, this isn't telling us how to live our lives - it's reminding us of the true cost and then leaving the decision to us. The way to protect the poor is, as Michael hints (I think), through the system of direct taxes, allowances and credits.
Barry, Wallington, UK
I'm sure you're right in large measure. The one question I have is about the sheer complexity of individually-based Carbon trading systems. One can just imagine the joy a Gordon Brown would have in tinklering with all of this.
No - the better way to give effect to the direction you identify is to translate the revenue from green taxes into higher tax allowances/thresholds. Simple, understandable by all, and can be pitched as equitable.
That would really make people sit up and take notice!
Paul Garwood, London,
Dear Dr Kevin Law,
1) It may not be a done deal but it's far more likely than not and given the potential consequences the risk is too big not to be dealt with.
2) In terms of the 'them' making it all up. Politicians do not want to have to take political decisions which are highly unpopular. The Media does not want people to start consuming less. Scientists are not renowned for their attempts to control people. And they're not remotely homogenous enough to be 'them'
3) I'm not sure Doctors count as prols so stop playing the oppressed card
Nick, London,
Sorry, are we talking about the same man who drove back home to put his heating on so his house was warmer later and flew from Oxford to Hereford?
Ben, York,
Cameron is only talking Green because he thinks its the sort of thing Tony would do - and he always follows his master!
He seems unable to realise that his natural constituents are more intelligent than he is, and fails to give them credit for being able to think for themselves. All he is succeeding in doing is building a deserved reputation for sycophancy and stupidity; he can't even show off riding a bicycle without getting caught with the chauffer following!
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England - not EU
The trouble is, for every soft-Liberal vote that might be won by talking 'green Liberalism', two Eurosceptic, 'Old Conservative' votes are liable to be lost. People like myself are fed up with the current consensus that it is OK to tax the Middle Classes till the pips squeak and then squander the proceeds. We want a Conservative Party that represents our interests and not those of the Liberal Party. That doesn't mean 'greed is good' instead of 'green is good' Conservatism but it does mean smaller Government, less interference from Europe, fewer immigrants and less authoritarianism. Is all that too much to ask of a party that claims to be right of centre?
Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge, England
I suggest Michael you start listening to the members if the science community who are not blinded by the eco-hype as it is coming to be called. To be honest it's far too early to be suggesting the science on climate change is a done deal. I could point out many anomalies in the science without trying very hard. No, climate change is the new Stalinism. Its all about control. It's Them (ie politicians/green groups/media/scientists) telling us, the prols, how to live our lives and tax us all to our last penny . Then holding climate change over our heads as a form of moral blackmail if we dont do as we are told. Its the perfect tool for control freaks. What is so distasteful is watching all the control freaks: from the Trots in the Labour Party to the new elite in the Tory party, not to mention the green groups and the media (especially the BBC), pushing and shoving each other trying to get the biggest slice of the control that they can.
Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK
I am sick to the stomach with this green hysteria and especially the hypocracy of all politicians preaching and taxing us to change our criminal eco-ways whilst taking a 94 mile journey by plane as Cameron did last week to meet a friend.
So much for practice what you preach!
How can I even consider voting for such a plonker!
phinias gribble, Sheffield,
You will not stop the planet doing in the future what it has done in the past. The lemmings are taking over.
Roger Sykes, Christchurch, New Zealand