Why the coalition can't and won't lurch to the right

The new cabinet remains bound by the terms of the Coalition Agreement.

New Conservative chairman Michael Green (otherwise known as Grant Shapps) insisted this morning that the reshuffle did not represent a "shift to the right" but, displaying an unusual degree of consensus, Fleet Street disagrees. The Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent all variously welcome or bemoan the reshuffle as a turn to the right. And it's not hard to see why. Liberal Tories such as Ken Clarke, George Young and Sayeeda Warsi have been sacked or demoted, while right-wingers such as Chris Grayling, Theresa Villiers and Owen Paterson have been promoted. Further down the ministerial ranks, Tory attack-dog-in-chief Michael Fallon, and George Osborne's representative on earth, Matthew Hancock, have been dispatched to BIS to rein in Vince Cable, the man known among Tories as the "anti-business secretary".

But, in all likelihood, liberals are wrong to fear and conservatives wrong to hope for a shift to the right in policy. As the Prime Minister's spokesman said yesterday, "This is a reshuffle, it doesn't mean a change in government policy. It means different people in different jobs, but the policy remains the same." The government remains bound by the terms of the Coalition Agreement, so the fact, for instance, that the new Justice Secretay Chris Grayling once resolved to "tear up" the Human Rights Act is of little significance. The presence of the Liberal Democrats means he won't be able to. It will be as if Ken Clarke never left. Similarly, any new push for radical supply side reform, along the lines of that proposed by the Beecroft Report, will be vetoed by Cable et al. As the Lib Dems are briefing this morning, they won't allow "a phalanx of new right-wing policies".

Too many Tory MPs and commentators pretend to forget that this is a coalition government. As one Conservative cabinet minister recently told ConservativeHome: "The Lib Dems may only have one-sixth of the MPs, but without them we have no majority... They own 100% of the majority." For that reason, this is not now and never will be the full-blooded Conservative government that the right wishes to see. In order to change that, they need to win a majority first, a goal that Cameron, in his refusal to remove George Osborne and reverse direction on the economy (the biggest drag on the Tories' poll ratings), did little to advance yesterday.

Ken Clarke asleep (again) at the cricket yesterday. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Helena Smith
Show Hide image

Can religion trump the climate change deniers? Meet the inter-faith environmentalists

The role of faith in fighting intolerance, protecting the planet, and trumping Trump.

"I need my brothers here with me - Canon Giles and Rabbi Natan," said Dr Husna Ahmad, motioning for the two men to join her at the pulpit. Taking their hands and raising them above her head, she continued:

“[I need them] to be my voice, to fight for my right to practice my religion, for my right to wear the hijab and to care for my sons and daughters and granddaughters - as they would care for their own”.

Why do I ask for this at an evening about climate change? she asked, her voice now shaking with emotion. “Because only when we think as one humanity can we save this planet.”

The meeting at St John’s church, Waterloo, saw Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders come together for the first-ever "Faith for the Climate" event. Their message echoed the wider Interfaith movement's statement on climate change: that caring for the earth is our shared responsibility. 

As so often with environmental subjects, the effort felt at risk of being shadowed by the more tangible needs of the soup-kitchen operating in the dusk outside. Yet at a time of rising Islamophobia and anti-Semitism building cross-community connections and tackling prejudice matter more than ever.

Not least since the fledgling consensus on climate change is also under threat. In the US, one of the world's great polluters, the Republican candidate Donald Trump is a climate change denier. 

During last night's televised debate Hillary Clinton took the businessman to task for saying that climate change was "a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese". Trump denied the accusation: "I did not, I did not, I do not say that," he responded. Yet his tweet history suggests otherwise - revealing how a toxic mix of xenophobia and climate scepticism play their part in his wider message.

Prepped with tea and pitta bread, attendees bore witness to a talk by Sir David King - the Foreign secretary's special representative on climate change. By 2035 the world needs to be at net zero emissions, King explained.

Unbearable heat waves, extreme flooding and biblical-levels of crop-destruction wait on the other side of this deadline.

Last week’s UN conference in New York has seen over 30 new nations, including the UK, officially commit to the Paris climate treaty.  Yet against such optimism must be set the looming prospect of a Trump Presidency in America. 

Not only has Trump said he would “cancel” America’s commitment to the Paris agreement. He has also promised to end the “war on coal”, scrap the Environment Protection Agency, and appoint an oil executive to be the Interior secretary. Without America’s support for global action on climate change, the 1.5 degrees target would be impossible to reach.

So how can religion help? On a direct level, many faith-based bodies are already utilising their vast networks to help tackle the challenge.

Since 2004, Operation Noah, a UK-based Christian charity, has called on the church to divest from fossil fuels.

Sir King also described the Pope's 2015 environmental encyclical as an important part of the "crescendo" that set the stage for the successful negotiations on the global climate deal. On the back of such international progress, groups such as Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and the Big Church Switch are strengthening their interventions. Just last week, Christian Aid announced a new $53m fund to improve energy efficiency in developing countries. 

But there is perhaps also another, less direct, way that religion is helping. Christian evangelicals in the US have been more likely to be climate sceptics. Yet in inter-religious contexts, the multiplicity of interpretations can also be an invitation to a deeper interrogation - of the very way we form assumptions about the world. 

Just look at how many takes there have been on the Noah story within Christianity alone. Mike Hulme at Kings College London points to an American Christian evangelical coalition which supports fossil fuels for their ability to provide cheap energy for the poor. Others have claimed that God’s promise to Noah not to drastically alter the earth again means that the impact of climate change will be softened. In contrast, others read floods as a punishment for human sin. According to the Bishop of Carlisle, the 2007 floods were “the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused.”

While it may be tempting to pack unpalatable viewpoints off in a "basket of deplorables", or wipe them out with an apocalyptic flood, the takeaway from events like last Wednesday's seems to be a message of expanded community and common ground.

For Canon Giles, simply watching members of different faiths united in prayer had transformative power. "In that moment, we were no longer a gathering of different faiths and dogmas," he said. "We were simply members of the muddled human species, pooling our hopes and prayers."

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.