John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith to spearhead green Toryism

If observers wanted an early example of the way in which David Cameron might be rejoining the establishment they should look at his approach to the environment.

Interviewed (tieless apparently) on this morning's Today programme, Mr Cameron made a virtue of the fact that his 'environment team' are all respected by Britain's green lobby groups:

• Peter Ainsworth - the new Shadow Environment Secretary - and until now, the Chairman of the Commons' Environmental Audit Committee.
• Oliver Letwin - the inspiration behind David Cameron's environment speech during the leadership race.
• John Gummer (pictured) and Zac Goldsmith - who will be leading lights of the new Policy Group on Quality of Life issues.

Mr Goldsmith - profiled on the new GoldList blog - and Mr Gummer will have responsibility for finding answers to questions of energy policy, the pollution caused by transport methods, the quality of the built environment and industrial emissions.

Mr Cameron told the Today programme that the party was prepared to make tough choices on the environment and it would carefully consider the recommendations of this and the other Policy Groups - when they report in 18 months' time.   

The danger of the Cameron-Letwin approach is that tough, controversial policies will need time to sell and Mr Cameron's long Policy Review process will limit the time for such policies to be sold to the second half of this parliament.  They have decided that the quality of policy ideas must come first.

Not everyone agrees with this 'new-blue-greenery'.  On his EnviroSpin blog, Professor Emeritus Philip Stott has warned that David Cameron cannot "deliver such naive stuff on climate change, while at the same time declaring that he will build more roads and focus on increasing UK competitiveness".

Comments

[Ian Sider]

"The danger of the Cameron-Letwin approach is that tough, controversial policies will need time to sell and Mr Cameron's long Policy Review process will limit the time for such policies to be sold to the second half of this parliament. They have decided that the quality of policy ideas must come first."

If we get our policies sorted out in the first half of this parliament then that will represent a considerable advance. In the last parliament, we didn't even start developing environmental policy until the last year. The parliament before that we didn't really have an environment policy at all.

These commissions are making a great start, let's hope they keep making progress. I'm sure we can rely on ConservativeHome for regular progress reports!

[James Hellyer]

"Mr Cameron's long Policy Review process will limit the time for such policies to be sold to the second half of this parliament."

Which would be particularly problematical if there was an early general election, called to capitalise on any "Brown Bounce", for example.

Furthermore, it's likely that issues such as our future energy supply will be addressed in parliament before then. What do we say about a new generation of nuclear power stations, for example, before the task force reports in? And how good will the quality of the task force's judgement be, when from the off it's led by a noted ant-nuclear zealot? I guess that's one option off the table...

[Ian Sider]

James -- don't believe for one moment that the nuclear issue will be decided early this parliament. The multi-billion pound investment required won't be committed without Government guarantees that will require the mandate of another election.

By the way, how do you define zealot?

[Innocent Abroad]

Best case scenario (in that involves Cameron being sincere, though it's still hardly good): we're about to tie ourselves to fundi-green policies so worthless that even Tony Blair is in the process of ditching even being polite about such nonsense. Far more likely: opportunistic platitudes by Cameron because he is deluded enough to think that the way we are going to get back to power is by mouthing fantasy politics in support of people who'd like to take the C2DEs back to the stone age. Where there isn't any digital TV.

[James Hellyer]

"don't believe for one moment that the nuclear issue will be decided early this parliament. The multi-billion pound investment required won't be committed without Government guarantees that will require the mandate of another election."

Disagree. Blair deliberately kept it off the agenad at the last election, and will now use his Commission findings to bounce the plans through before the next election.

By the way, how do you define zealot?

Someone who's fanatically committed, as Goldsmith is to opposition of the nuclear programme.

[Coxy]

I'd see this more as a way of kicking the 'green issue' into the long grass for a while.

Cameron gets the credit for talking about the environment during his leadership campaign. Then he gets credit for setting up a special committee.

But does he have to *do* anything? Has he got any actual policies or ideas? "No, not yet, I've at a team of specialists think about it."

Ditto for the social justice group. Very Blairite.

[Mark Fulford]

Coxy, since Cameron can't possibly do anything about any of these issues for 4 years, spending a bit of time on getting them right seems a good idea.

[Nicholas S]

http://www.qualityoflifechallenge.com/

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I think the quality of life policy area - which will include (I assume) the debate on energy provision is one that is going to be at the top of the political agenda.

I have to say top marks to DC and his team for getting this off the ground literally days after he is in post.

The Lib Dems are already saying "the proof will be in the pudding" but its great to see our party setting out our stall!

[Ian Sider]

"Disagree. Blair deliberately kept it off the agenad at the last election, and will now use his Commission findings to bounce the plans through before the next election."

Government giving the green light to nuclear is a very different matter deciding on the specifics e.g. which design of plant,what construction schedule, what guaranteed price for nuke electricity, where to stick the waste etc. And that's before one even comes to committing the cash. This is going to be rather than more complicated than the pro-nuke zealots assume.

[Derek]

The problem DC will have with his green credentials is that he will be challenged on them at every step, rather like the John Major Back to Basics policy. Today he was pulled up for driving to his meeting in a large gas guzzling car. The green issues are a priority for a few anoraks, but they are low down the agenda for most voters, so any policies will have to have regard for this and not cause too much pain, or they will have a negative effect.

[James Hellyer]

"This is going to be rather than more complicated than the pro-nuke zealots assume."

I doubt it. Government can commit billions to Defence projects with little real scrutiny, and the last round of nuclear powerplants weren't that mired in legislative mess.

Wishful thinking on your part, I think.

[Ian Sider]

"Government can commit billions to Defence projects with little real scrutiny, and the last round of nuclear powerplants weren't that mired in legislative mess."

James there is no comparison between Defence projects and nuclear power stations. The former usually take much less time than the latter, and the contractor get paid up front for delivering a piece of kit to the Government. With nuclear the contractor owns the plant and gets their money back by selling the electricity that comes from it. A totally different business model!

By the way, the last round of nuclear power plants was cancelled by Margaret Thatcher after the costs of Sizewell B spiralled out of control.

I wish that the advocates of nuclear power would inform themselves more thorough before proclaiming nukes to be the answer. After all, you wouldn't want anyone calling you a zealot!

[Jack stone]

It as always made me angry that the left have always thought they had a monopoly about caring for the environment.
Conserving the environment should be a Conservative issue.We should have our own plans for dealing with climate change, development in the countryside and problems with transport etc.
During the Thachcer years we had this attitude that we could stand back from these issues and let the market decide.Where the countryside was concerned we had a reputation that we were the builders friend who would approve any development regardless of what it was or where it was. Times have changed and so must we.
We have got to accept that there is a place for government action in these matters and I hope that the new commission will accept that policy first and formost must be government lead.

[James Hellyer]

"James there is no comparison between Defence projects and nuclear power stations."

Other than Trident of course. I'd also add that the model you offer for Defence Projects is almost entirely false. Contractors aren't given tens of billions and told to go away and come back with a plane or ship.

"By the way, the last round of nuclear power plants was cancelled by Margaret Thatcher after the costs of Sizewell B spiralled out of control."

Which was in totally different circumstances. The nation wasn't facing the decommissioning of its existing plants, and an overall energy shortfall. That government was also trying to rein in government spending.

"After all, you wouldn't want anyone calling you a zealot!"

There's a difference here: many in the anti-nuclear lobby are zealots, because they refuse to countenance nuclear power under any circumstances, while those in the pro-nuclear lobby consider other options, but think we still need nuclear plants. No zealotry there.

[RodS]

No debate on 'green' issues ever gives even cursory attention to THE Root cause. Climate change has become a threat to the planet not just because we burn dirty fuels and have wasteful lifestyles - it's also because we have too many climate changers ! housing on geenfields - traffic congestion - waste disposal - flood risk - you name it! they all originate with population growth. Recent ONS forecasts expect the UK population to hit 70m within 60 years, most of it fuelled by immigration.What hope can there be of resolving energy needs/ carbon emissions/ transport gridlock etc with this level of growth.No political party currently has a policy position on what is sustainable population level, as a result all debates on green issues are fundamentally flawed.Time to recognise the 'elephant in the room'

[Tory T]

Jack Stone and RodS are to be congratulated for articulating true Conservative positions. Zac Goldsmith would agee too.

One of the main reasons the Tories became so unpopular (particularly with young people) was that our inspiring message of ambition and self-inprovement became tainted by the whiff of greed and selfishness.

I call it the Litter Test. If someone - rich or poor - is walking down a quiet street at night do they drop their sweet wrapper on the ground or put it in their pocket?

Any true Tory, any decent human being in fact, does the latter. Those who seek quick profits by building on the green belt, those who seek quick profits by importing cheap foreign labour, those who seek quick profits by pumping greenhouse gasses into our skies - they are the destroyers of the quality of life.

Our new Quality of Life Commission may not come up with all the answers but it's great that we're asking the questions.

[Derek]

Rod S is right to mention immigration as the cause of many of the pressures on our environment, and the world's population is the root cause of the massive expansion in industry which may be the cause of global warming. Of course, we can no more control the world's population than we can control the emissions from the industries of the world, but I suppose that it is considered to be more politically correct to pretend to do the latter than the former.

[Ian Sider]

"I'd also add that the model you offer for Defence Projects is almost entirely false. Contractors aren't given tens of billions and told to go away and come back with a plane or ship."

That wasn't the model I was offering. Most defence contracts are smaller. They get the money when they deliver the kit. And quite often they get interim payments (c.f. the wretched Eurofighter project). However in a modern nuclear build programme the theory is that nothing gets sold to the Government at all, the money is recovered from electricity consumers after the plant is completed -- which continues to be owned by the those that paid for it.

"The nation wasn't facing the decommissioning of its existing plants, and an overall energy shortfall."

Yes it was. Back in the 1980s the fact of decommissioning was well known, hence the proposal to build new stations in time for the phase out which is starting now. It is already too late to replace the capacity we are now losing (at least not without a timelag). Even if the Government really gets its skates on, the first new stations wouldn't come on line until 2015 at the earliest, by which time we'll already have lost about half our capacity. If all goes well further new stations would be built at the rate of two every two years or so, meaning that we wouldn't have a complete set until about 2025. A new nukes scenario would therefore need some sort of bridge -- probably extra gas-fired capacity -- but who will invest in that if they're told that they'll then have to make way for nuclear? The nuclear industry's PR blitz is all about getting goverment to commit itself before anyone realises just how problematic the basic proposition is.

"There's a difference here: many in the anti-nuclear lobby are zealots, because they refuse to countenance nuclear power under any circumstances, while those in the pro-nuclear lobby consider other options, but think we still need nuclear plants. No zealotry there."

Well of course the pro-nuclear lobby consider other options -- given that there's no sane scenario in which nukes could supply all our energy needs. There are however plenty of sane options in which nuclear could be excluded from the energy mix. The reason why some people refuse to countenance nuclear any circumstances is because they object to the fact that a deadly pollutant is created which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years. They consider this to be morally wrong because they don't believe we have the right to impose such a burden on future generations. This is actually a rather sound Burkean principle and it shouldn't be dismissed as mere zealotry. True Conservatives refuse to countenance all sorts of things -- e.g. a centrally planned economy, a federal europe, the repeal of all enevironmental regulation etc. This doesn't make us zealots. One really ought to stop and think before hurling insults at the green lobby -- they're not right about everything but they do want to make the world a better place and most voters are broadly well disposed to them. A negative attitude from our Party is really rather unattractive and does us no favours.

[James Hellyer]

"That wasn't the model I was offering."

I know. You were deliberately offering the wrong model. The point is that defence projects - including nuclear ones - show that the government can and will commit to multi-billion projects without recourse to the ballot box.

"Yes it was."

No it wasn't. The government was not then facing the reality of 35% of its power generation capacity going offline in the next decade, as well as dwindling supplies of North Sea gas forcing it to rely on the unrelaible interconnector.

"A new nukes scenario would therefore need some sort of bridge"

Not necessarily. New reactors could be constructed at existing sites with little trouble. The real difficulty would finding new sites.

"The reason why some people refuse to countenance nuclear any circumstances is because they object to the fact that a deadly pollutant is created which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years."

Which can be safely stored. Anyway, one of the biggest improvement in nuclear technology has been the drastic reduction in the volume of waste produced. If modern plants replaced the existing stations, Britain would be able to maintain a 20-25% share of nuclear-generated power and add only roughly 10% to the our volume of existing nuclear waste over their 60-year operating lifetime

"True Conservatives refuse to countenance all sorts of things"

No one who isn't a zealot would try and define themselves as a "true" anything. Displaying a negative attitude like that does our party no favours.

[James Hellyer]

And in any case, Ian, I note that you entirely dodged my original point: appointing the Zac Goldsmith, editor of an anti-capitalist, anti-big business and anti-globalisation magazine, to the environmental taskforce shows a worrying regard for Leftish convention over substance, and casts doubt on the taskforce's direction from the start.

You may not like nuclear power, but Zac Goldsmith's presence would indicate that it won't get anything like a disinterested assessment.

Indeed, a number of Mr Goldsmith's beliefs cause concern with regard to this appointment. For example, he believes that our society could survive without any diminution of its standard of living on 70% less electricity than is currently consumed.

It should be our job to expose such sloppy thinking, not to put it in charge of developing our environmental policy! While there is an argument that the grid based model of electricty supply is flawed, starting with assumptions about not needing 70% of our power supply is simply to ignore political, economic and social realities.

[simon clewer]

test cache

[Sean Corrigan]

I find your website one of the most difficult to use. More info seems less. Its not designed to draw me in. David Camerons website drew me in at the leadership election. I am not a conservative member but was thinking about 2 things 1. How to join cant on the web. 2. how to contribute to policy debates cant see any engagement of people not already in the fold. Regards

[Peter]

"A better quality of life" for the vast majority of people is having
more money in their pockets to support their families. Only the rich can afford the luxury of paying green taxes. Massive tax cuts is the only way that the Conservative party will defeat an environmentally friendly Gordon Brown who has already stolen Conservative party clothes by defending the need to put more decision making at a local level.

As for global warming - we need more of it. Our "records" began in the middle of the mini-ice age in 1700 out of which we are now emerging. In the Middle Ages, red wine was produced in Yorkshire, Tenterden ( Kent) was a Cinque port ( now 15 miles inland), and the Isles of Oxney and Thanet (Kent)were islands. We basically had the climate of Bordeaux today and the sea was higher than today.
I hope to buy a Hummer soon as my contribution to help global warming .

[David Speight]

The problem I have with Green Tax, this tax is not used to help improve the environment it is used like all other tax for anything the government choose. Also this tax will have no effect on the rich they will continue in there same life style while the rest of us are forced on to public transport or not to fly on holiday. Green Tax is a tax against the workingman.