Danny Alexander picks an important fight with Osborne

Scrap over climate change policy.

In tabling a motion for the Liberal Democrats autumn conference on low carbon policy, Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has picked an important fight with his boss, the Chancellor George Osborne. Alexander’s feet must be kept to the fire on this if Britain is to have any chance of achieving its legal obligations to decarbonise the power sector.

Alexander’s motion roundly criticizes "the refusal of the Conservatives to acknowledge that investing in carbon reducing technologies has the potential to make an important contribution to long-term growth".

There is no one this accusation can be more squarely aimed at than Alexander’s boss in the Treasury, the Chancellor George Osborne.

Since his autumn 2011 conference speech, Osborne has been almost wholly negative on the low carbon agenda. "We are not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business", he said putting himself squarely at odds with business groups like the CBI and EEF who see the green economy as a key driver of growth. Indeed, the green economy grew by 2.3 per cent in real terms in 2010/11, and made up a third of what little growth Britain managed in 2011/12.

Most recently Osborne was heavily rebuked by the Energy and Climate Change Committee for undermining the development of the government’s flagship Energy Bill, which is intended to bring forward vast amounts of investment in low carbon energy sources. Osborne seems far more interested in making the UK a fossil fuel hub and frightening the wind industry than going low carbon.

The Chancellor is likely to be particularly angered by Alexander’s proposal for the Government to establish a 2030 decarbonisation target for the power sector, in the range of 50 to 100 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour of energy produced. 2030 is a crucial staging post towards the UK reducing its emissions by 80 per cent 2050, and, while the independent Committee on Climate Change and the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee have recommended that a target of 50g by 2030 for the power sector is adopted, it is something to which Osborne appears firmly opposed. The mismatch between Alexander’s proposed target range of 50g to 100g, instead of the stricter 50g recommended by the Committee on Climate Change, is something that requires an explanation.

It is our view, set out in our submission to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, that adoption of a 2030 power sector target is the single most important step the Government can take to provide certainty to industry about the direction of travel for the energy industry. Providing this certainty, we believe, will ensure that energy bills are kept as low as possible and the UK reaps the maximum benefits from growth in low carbon sectors, while at the same time emissions are reduced.

Danny Alexander is right to challenge the Chancellor on climate change policy because going low carbon is the only credible economic policy. It is now time for others to come out in support of the 2030 target and ensure it is adopted by government in the Energy Bill. This includes the Labour party; prominent green-minded Conservative MPs like Zac Goldsmith, Oliver Letwin and William Hague who are witnessing the rapid deterioration of their party’s reputation on climate change; and industry pressure groups like the CBI that are supportive of ambitious emission reduction policies.

Reg Platt is a Research Fellow at IPPR. He tweets at @regplatt

George Osborne. Photograph: Getty Images

Reg Platt is a Research Fellow at IPPR. He tweets as @regplatt.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.