Golden haze
Cards on the table: as the MP for Richmond Park, I am the Liberal Democrat that Zac Goldsmith hopes to unseat at the next general election. But it is nice, in the rather brutal world of politics, to find areas in which it is possible to work across the political divide, and the environment is often one of them. So it is in the search for common ground that I consider Goldsmith's new book, The Constant Economy.
I can confidently say that this volume, which collects and summarises the ideas that are informing contemporary environmental thinking, is a useful campaigning tool, enthusiastically argued and, in its "ten-step" format, easy to follow.
Goldsmith describes his book as a "political programme", however, so that is how it should be judged. Some of it is just plain flaky - take, for example, his proposal for a Progress Commission to "track signs of unhappiness like suicide and use of antidepressants, drug use and crime levels as well as the amount of leisure time available to people to spend with their children". We have enough government intrusion in our lives already without this.
Reading the chapter on food, one can't help thinking that Goldsmith has rarely been responsible for the weekly shop, although he has several useful things to say in this area, especially on the subject of better food for children. Similarly, his argument for a stronger "precautionary principle" governing new scientific research ought to be taken seriously.
Goldsmith and I are also are in agreement about high-speed rail, halting the expansion of Heathrow Airport (though I wouldn't rule out a Conservative volte-face on this) and protection for back gardens. Not to mention a range of other strategies, often pioneered by my party, many of which are now, happily, moving from the fringe into the mainstream.
As for his proposals on referendums, these are an important contribution to the debate on widening democracy. I am concerned, however, that his discussion makes no mention of the need for a written constitution to protect the basic rights of all, especially minorities.
My most substantial reservations are to do with Goldsmith's somewhat naive belief that, provided governments do the right thing, environmental solutions will be pain-free. I want, and work for, changes that will support the environment and provide a sustainable future; but respect for the intelligence of ordinary people requires that we acknowledge that there will be losers as well as winners, and that lasting change is often painful.
Green taxes are a good example. Goldsmith accepts the argument, long made by the Liberal Democrats , that new green taxes should be neutral: that is, offset by cuts in other taxes. But which taxes? My party has made it clear that the tax cuts would go to low- and middle-income earners. The Conservatives have stayed silent about taxes, with the exception of a commitment to reduce inheritance tax for the wealthiest 6 per cent of the population.
Goldsmith has nothing to say about this. And there lies the problem for him (and the Tories), because until you identify the winners and losers of such a policy, you cannot plausibly argue for it. Typically, green taxes fall on those who are less well-off. Unless we commit to a fairer tax system, passing the offset on to the poorer members of society, tax neutrality is meaningless.
The author's call for hefty increases in landfill taxes falls into the same category. The current government already has substantial increases in the pipeline. By this single policy, Tory suggestions that council taxes will fall are exposed as empty. Shouldn't this be said explicitly?
And, speaking of sitting on the fence, note that Goldsmith claims the Conservatives' position that "nuclear power will be a part of the energy mix if it is economically viable" amounts to a rejection of nuclear power. His chapter on the topic is excellent (he is against nuclear power, and is therefore in step with Liberal Democrat policy), but it is wilful self-deception on his part to see Tory policy as anything but pro-nuclear. This is highly significant, because it is an issue on which MPs will certainly be required to vote in the next parliament.
Some readers will also find perplexing Goldsmith's constant confusion of taxation with markets, and the absence of any substantive discussion of the role market tools can play in achieving sustainable solutions. In consequence, he misses good ideas, such as Liberal Democrat proposals that would enable energy companies to make money from financing the retrofit of homes, sharing in the energy savings.
It should be said, however, that a book of this kind can't be comprehensive, and Goldsmith deserves credit for taking on the subject - and for his decision to donate income from sales to charity.
The Constant Economy
Zac Goldsmith
Atlantic Books, 256pp, £16.99
Susan Kramer is MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston
