Unity on climate change has never been more urgent

Learning from the devastation in the Philippines

The rising death toll from Typhoon Bopha which hit Mindanao in the Southern Philippines this week highlights the vulnerability of communities around the world to the impact of climate change and serves as a timely reminder to government representatives currently at the UN Climate Change Conference in Doha of the need for urgent collective action.

I witnessed myself the devastation that such violent storms can cause during my visit with UNICEF UK to Mindanao just a year ago in the aftermath of Typhoon Washi which killed thousands of people. Seeing the devastated area and talking with the government, NGOs and survivors in the refugee shelters it was clear that despite the tragedy reconstruction was already underway. During my visit I was told that typhoons and tropical storms were less common in the south of the country but climate change means that more areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable. I can’t help but think about the people I met who had lost everything and were trying to rebuild their lives. As a result of climate change those same people may now be facing situations such as this with increasing regularity. 

It is the most vulnerable in society who are likely to be the ones who will be the most affected by these events. UNICEF estimates that there are approximately 756 million children living in the ten countries most vulnerable to climate change and at least half of all people who die in disasters are children. They experience unimaginable fear and confusion as they attempt to deal with the loss of the most stable aspects of their lives, whether that is family members, their home, regular meals or schooling.

The Philippines is listed as the sixth country in the world most vulnerable to climate change and the response to Typhoon Bopha has been a good example of how preparatory measures can save lives. The people in affected areas had been warned by phone messages, the media and the government. It is vital to ensure the most vulnerable, including children, are adequately prepared and the new global institution for finance, the Green Climate Fund, should be constructed in a way that ensures it helps to deliver protection for children in the most vulnerable countries.

As international leaders meet this week at the 18th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP18) ambitious action is needed to ensure global emissions are reduced. We cannot afford not to recognise the impact of climate change on the lives and wellbeing of those in developed and developing nations alike. Governments must also ensure that they mobilise new and additional funds for 2013 and beyond to meet the global goal of $100bn a year by 2020. It is essential that the resources are available for the adaptation measures needed to ensure that children in all nations do not grow up in a world of further climate extremes. I hope that COP18 will put the needs of children at the heart of initiatives to limit the damage of climate change.

As people in the UK battle to save their homes from floods, families in America seek to repair the damage wrought by Hurricane Sandy and this latest typhoon claims further lives in the Philippines the importance of our commitment to address climate change has never been clearer. It has confirmed to me once again how we are united in our differences. The capacity of people to weather the storm must be equal no matter on what continent the storm lands and the current UN negotiations provide an important opportunity to demonstrate a united response to the global problem of climate change.

Tony Cunningham is Shadow International Development Minister, MP for Workington

Damage wrought by Typhoon Bopha in the Philippines (Getty Images)
Getty
Show Hide image

The English left must fall out of love with the SNP

There is a distinction between genuine leftism and empty anti-establishmentarianism.

After a kerfuffle on Twitter the other night, I am all too aware that writing something even mildly questioning of the SNP government is the British equivalent of approaching a lion pride on a kill. Nevertheless, seeing the almost hero-levels of mental gymnastics tweeted by Mhairi Black, in the week of the Hillsborough inquiry whereupon Nicola Sturgeon posed with a copy of The Sun endorsing her re-election, prompted me once more to consider just how spectacular the distance has become between the SNP that stood against Ed Miliband versus the SNP today and in government.

Mhairi tweeted: “So Kezia wants to put up the taxes of Scottish people to subsidise Tory cuts that her party supported in Westminster?”. Confused? So am I.

This follows in a series of SNP revisionism on what austerity is and the excuses the SNP has hidden, not quite so conspicuously, up its sleeve to not act on its new tax powers, so as not to break its bond with Middle Scotland. They insist that Labour’s plans for a penny tax are not progressive, and have framed it in such a way that an anti-austerity plan has now become a subsidy for cuts Labour actually haven’t supported for more than a year now. Just like that, the SNP is a low-tax mimicry of Toryism.

But it isn’t ‘just like that’. The SNP have governed from an economically cautious stance for seven years. For a brief period, they borrowed Ed Miliband’s clothes. But once the Red Wedding had been completed, they returned back to where they started: as successors to New Labour, though that is hardly fair: they are far, far less redistributive.

So why is it, in the 2015 election, and even today, many of us on the left in England still entrust our faith in SNP rhetoric? Still beat the drum for an electoral ‘progressive’ coalition with a party that doesn’t seem very happy to embrace even the concept of higher taxes?

My theory is that the SNP have successfully, indeed more successfully than any party in Britain, adopted the prime hobby of much of the Left: ‘againstism’.

‘Againstism’, clumsy I admit, is to be against everything. This can include a negative framing of being anti-austerity but not pro-anything in its place. But in this instance, it means to be anti-establishment. The latter, the establishment, is what Labour as a party of government always has aspired to be in competing to be the national government in Westminster - which is why elements of the Left will always hate it and will always vote against it. In a way, some of the left is suspicious of governance. This is occasionally healthy, until it prevents real progressivism from ever being elected.

While in government, Labour could be seen as sell-outs, rightly or wrongly, because they became the establishment and had no one but themselves to blame. The SNP are the establishment, in Scotland, but can nevertheless exercise ‘againstism’, even with new tax powers. They always will so long as Westminster exists, and so long as their main motivation is independence. This is why the bogeymans that sustain nationalism are not natural allies of social democracy; to achieve social democracy would be to remove the bogeyman. This means that the Lesser New Labour tradition within which they govern will continue to go unnoticed, nor be doomed to eventual death as New Labour itself suffered, nor be looked back on as an era of neoliberalism. The SNP can just avert attentions back to the Westminster establishment. ‘Againstism’. Paradoxically, the way the SNP have managed to come to exploit this is because of New Labour's devolution. Devolution has created, for the first time, the perfect environment for an establishment in one part of the country to blame the establishment in another. It has allowed for the rise of an incumbent insurgent. The SNP can campaign as insurgents while still being incumbents. It is a spectacular contradiction that they alone can manage.

Insurgency and anti-establishment politics are not, of themselves, a bad thing. We on the Left all dip our toes in it. It is a joy. It is even more fun for us to be successful. Which is why the celebratory mood that surrounded the SNP gains in Scotland, a paradigm shift against one incumbent for another, is, objectively, understandable. But these insurgents are not actually insurgents; they are the illusion of one, and they have had the reigns of power, greater now for the Scotland Bill, for seven years. And they have done little radical with it. The aim of an anti-establishment politics is to replace an establishment with something better. All the SNP have done is inherit an establishment. They are simply in the fortunate position of managing to rhetorically distance itself from it due to the unique nature of devolution.

This is why some of the Left still loves them, despite everything. They can remain ‘againstists’ regardless of their incumbency. They do not have the stench of government as a national Labour government did and inevitable would have. So the English Left still dream.

But now, with this mounting evidence and the SNP’s clumsy revisionism, it is up to the English Left to distinguish between genuine leftism and empty anti-establishmentarianism, and to see the establishment -via governance- as something to define for itself, to reshape as something better, rather than something to be continuously against. This is, after all, what Attlee's government did. The SNP have not defined the establishment, they have continued someone else's. It's up to us to recognise that and fall out of love with the SNP.