Starmer is in a quandary over how to fight the green battle
Given the widespread view at Westminster that green concerns do not really register with the voters, political leaders from both Labour and Conservative are spending an awful lot of time debating and planning changes to environmental policy.
The immediate trigger of interest is of course the outcome of the by-election last week in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. The swing against the government of 6.7 per cent was dramatically smaller than in the Tory wipeout in the other two constituencies contested last Thursday. If repeated across the country, the voting pattern in the outskirts of London would have denied Sir Keir Starmer an outright majority in parliament at the next general election.
The significance of the Conservatives clinging onto Boris Johnson’s old seat can be overestimated. It was never even won by Tony Blair’s great New Labour Landslide of 1997. But it has given Conservatives hope and upset Labour. The main parties are desperately trimming their green policies in pursuit of electoral advantage.
Political analysts may insist that the general election will not be settled on environmental issues. They may point out that in opinion polls more people back Ultra Low Emission Zones than oppose them. London apologists may protest that, in reality, only one in ten cars will be affected and that the government is holding out on compensation schemes it has given to other parts of the country.
Regardless, party strategists on both sides have identified the proposed introduction of what would be a £12.50 a day charge on older vehicles as the kind of wedge issue which can sway key voters to diverge from the current political mood.
Starmer has warned his victory-hungry activists: “We are doing something very wrong if policies put forward by the Labour Party end up on each and every Tory leaflet.” He has urged Mayor Sadiq Khan to reconsider his plans.
Pressure is mounting on the Conservative side to go further removing what David Cameron once dismissed as “the green crap” from their offer to voters. The ever-wily levelling-up secretary Michael Gove has followed up his post-poll observation that “net zero can’t become a crusade” with relaxed rules for new house building.
There has been an accompanying chorus of headlines in the Conservative press such as “Red light for costly green pledges” and “Britain needs a referendum on net-zero”. Today’s Daily Mail produced a helpful list of “No 10’s current eco plans … and which could go.” Somewhat incongruously all this coverage is vying on front pages with pictures and panicked reports of wildfires forcing emergency evacuations of holidaymakers from Greek Islands.
Inevitably the debate on policy is mixing up different “green” issues yet not all of them are directly linked to cutting carbon emissions. Low Emission Zones are a response to air pollution by particulates and nitrous oxide. London Councils attributes 9,400 deaths a year in the capital to low air quality and estimates the cost in billions to the NHS.
The issue was highlighted in late 2020 when the coroner made the landmark ruling that nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah’s death was due to air pollution. Ella’s mother continues to campaign and estimates a further 60 London children have died for similar reasons since her daughter’s death.
The Greek wildfires seem to have a direct manmade cause since they are being blamed on arsonists. Nonetheless, the incidence of fires around the world is increasing spectacularly in such places as Canada, Turkey, Portugal, Spain and France in recent years and not forgetting Wennington, East of London, last year on the hottest day yet recorded.
Fires feature in the code-red escalation of recorded “extreme weather events” attributed to climate change. A 2021 assessment of scientific studies by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, noted that warmer summer weather is drying out landscapes making it easier for fires to take hold, while also making severe flooding more likely.
All countries participating in the UN’s COP process accept that the global temperature has risen 1.2C from pre-industrial times, as a result of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Few dispute that this lies behind the growing incidence of such catastrophic events.
The issue for politicians is what they think they should do about the climate crisis and how much expense or inconvenience voters are prepared to accept before rebelling.
Successive UK governments have committed to the United Nations Net Zero target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2050. In pursuit of this the Conservative government committed to phase out sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, five years ahead of the EU.
The prime minister signalled his support by including the target in the new name for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero. But, unlike the Labour leader, he did not include low-carbon in his five key policy pledges. Rishi Sunak is widely reported to be “not interested” in green issues by disillusioned Tory grandees such as John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith.
An official review of “Mission Zero” by the Conservative MP Chris Skidmore confirmed that the UK is not on course to hit its interim target of emission reduction by 2030.
In going soft on green issues, the government is playing to Conservative supporters with its plans to reduce environmental demands made by individual voters and businesses. Sunak has stated explicitly that he does not intend to compete with the US and EU with big direct investments in green industries. This is contrary to the views expressed in Skidmore’s report which described moving to net zero as “the economic opportunity of the 21st century” which could be done in an efficient and affordable manner “pro-business, pro-enterprise and pro-growth”.
Piecemeal initiatives are faltering in the UK. The proposed hydrogen levy to fund the development of a clean gas industry is set to be dropped this summer along with environmental stipulations for newly constructed houses. The Conservatives are firmly against the extension of ULEZs in cities. Even though the initial scheme was first announced for London in 2015 by then-Mayor Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister is now attacking it in his newspaper column.
This places the Labour leader in a quandary. Starmer and his shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves have already cancelled the much-vaunted £28 billion Green New Deal until “growth permits”. The Labour leadership has imposed iron discipline against spending commitments and is phobic about proposing tax rises.
The calculation is that potentially decisive sections of the electorate are in favour of green policies until they have to pay for them, or until, like the Just Stop Oil protests, they inconvenience the public. There is also the legitimate concern that those most in need of green vehicles and boilers are also those least able to pay for them.
Yet if Starmer is too Conservative-lite in his green policy, Labour risks losing some support to the left. The Greens came third in Uxbridge, with 2.9 per cent of the votes. A paltry, deposit losing share but those 893 votes would have given Labour victory.
As political leaders triangulate and gear up to win as many votes as possible at the next election, the UK is no longer a global leader in the fight for the environment. Perhaps we want it that way.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life