Tory supporters prefer motoring to MORE green taxes

David Cameron may persuade a few Tories to pick up some litter and avoid overfilling their kettles but he faces an uphill struggle convincing them of higher taxation of motoring.  A Populus survey for The Times finds that Conservative voters oppose 'increasing the cost of motoring to encourage less driving' by 65% to 33%.  There is a Prodi-thin majority (50% to 49%) for 'new taxes on air travel to reduce the number of flights' amongst Tory supporters but 18-24 year-olds are opposed to this measure by 57% to 43%.  It appears that wristband environmentalism is not so popular when it means gap year travel gets a bit more pricey.

Moving on from green taxation for a moment and returning to cosmetic environmentalism David Cameron's trip to a glacier in Norwegian islands of Svalbard has come under attack from two sources.  Iain Murray (a regular YourPlatform contributor) has noted that "a 2003 journal article by Isaksson et al confirmed that while the 20th century is the warmest in Svalbard history for the past 600 years, the warmest decade was the 1930s."  "Whoever told Mr Cameron that this glacier is "a poster child for global warming... should be sacked," concludes Mr Murray.  The prolific ConservativeHome contributor 'Chad' makes, for me, a more telling comment in response to the Hague-Mitchell article on YourPlatform about Darfur:

"Although I agree that David Cameron should have been in the UK helping with the local elections instead of flying off for a foreign photo shoot, if he did have to go somewhere at this particular time, would not Darfur have been the place and cause to highlight rather than the superficial choice of a Norwegian glacier?"

Comments

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

"Chad" is the leader of his own political party. Would you use a Blair or Campbell quote in that way in your article?

[Chad]

It may be a really silly name but it is my real one. No need for the quotation marks!

Come on Iain, we're all focused on beating New Labour, and the new Tory party is supposed to be seeking to attract people not within the party, not abusing them for sharing ideas.

Cut the tribalism, and discuss themes like adults.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

1. Chad is not a tory, he runs "Imagine"
2. Darfur and foreign policy in general is not an issue in the local elections, the environment is.
3. Another word for tribalism is loyalty.

[The Scotsman]

All this tedious bitching about the Leader is really putting me off this web site. Even Ian Dale is enough of a good Tory to be supportive on his site. This was a great site during the leadership campaign but it is damaging the Party now. The monthly polls about Cameron and the shadow cabinet are being used in the anti tory press to undermine him and the comments are becoming very predictical and in some cases just plain bitter.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Come on Iain, we're all focused on beating New Labour, and the new Tory party is supposed to be seeking to attract people not within the party, not abusing them for sharing ideas."

Iain is right, Chad. The truth is, if you were really interested in seeing the Conservatives defeat New Labour, you wouldn't have quit the party in a huff and proceed to constantly snipe from the sidelines. But back to the issue at hand...

"It appears that wristband environmentalism is not so popular when it means gap year travel gets a bit more pricey."

A particularly astute observation, if I may say so.

The trouble with student idealism is that it is soon forgotten when it isn't somebody else paying for it.

Take, for example, the support by the NUS of the AUT/NAFTHE strike action, which is in complete contradiction of their opposition to the higher fees that will fund the increased wages demanded by the academic staff.

[Chad]

Oh Daniel! (rolls eyes again)

This is the second time you've sought to disrupt the discussion completely and attack me.

Why not discuss the issues not the man? I won't go over my reasons for quitting, but as many people have agreed with my comments as disagreed with them.

If you have issues with me, then please mail me instead of keep repeating them here. You've made your feelings known, so it would be helpful if you don't keep repeating them time after time against the flow of the discussion.

>>>>Back to Subject<<<<
Will anyone believe that the Tory party is committed to changing behaviour if it is not prepared to try and reduce the number of flights that pollute our skies.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

But if they did you would just accuse them of sharing a platform with the greens in addition to being pro tax and anti business, think of all the jobs in airports ect ect ect. You slam Cameron for leaving the country and then slam him again for not being serious enough about the environment which is the whole point of the trip!

No wonder you have to be the leader of your own political party which by definition must agree with everything you have to say.

(DVA, the reason most Con 18-24 year olds surveyed were anti is because almost everyone of that age range prepared to identity prepared to identify as Tory makes Milton Friedman look middle of the road.)

[verulamgal]

Ye Gods, it's coming to something when criticism of "The Leader" is described as "tedious bitching". I'm sorry, I thought this was still a country where opinions could be freely expressed.

Chad is right in what he says, although these foreign photocall stunts do have sometning of a Blarite ring about them. Still what else can you expect from the self styled "heir to Blair"? Going out of the country during the local election campaign...just sums up what the man thinks of the poor bloody infantry in the real world beyond the M25

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Voters own televisions. The rest of the "poor bloody infantry" know this to be the case. A photocall stunt is exactly the kind of thing to project a positive image of a conservative leader into every home in the land. Did you see Brown's trip to Africa on the TV. Did he look good? Well then.

[Richard]

As Conservatives we should talk about tax cuts for those who choose to use environmentally friendly methods of transport etc, not tax rises for those who choose not to.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I'm always a bit suspicous of people who post under pseudonyms Don't Make Me Laugh,and I'm very suspicous of you.Do you actually know anything about this subject at all?"

Posted by: malcolm

Hi Malcolm,
the subject you refer to (that I referred to) and carried over from yesterday: global warming and climate change; well, Malcolm we assume that you know a lot about the subject, so please enlighten us? I said my piece.
I note that there are articles on this website and in todays rabid Left-wing Telegraph critical and highly amused at Cameron's ice skating trip to Norway.
I have difficulty in understanding where Mr Cameron, a self procalimed Conservative, is coming from or going to. I can only assume that he has set out to obtain power by misleading us as to his true beliefs. However, he has surrounded himself with advisers that call that strategy into question. I would love to vote for the Conservative Party, but before I do I have got to see one. Anyway not to worry - all those Lib/Dems will vote for him - the likes of me are n't really needed.

"I'm always a bit suspicous of people who post under pseudonyms Don't Make Me Laugh,and I'm very suspicous of you"

Please do not confuse me with the newcomer, "Still Laughing" (I understand why he or she is Still Laughing). My real name is Paul - as in Paultheotherlegitsgotbellson.
Unless there is some unforseen catastrophy, I do not believe the oddly and whimsically named Conservative Party will win the next election. A failing economy is its best hope - a great shame we will all agree.

[a-tracy]

Iain, The difference is that Chad is running an alternative conservative party not socialist party. Conservative Home says that it 'became a vital forum for conservatives to come together and discuss issues of common interest - free of party control'.

If this has now changed to a members only forum, and a positive members only forum at that, I think it's time we were told this formally and none members could buzz off.

At least Chad has taken time to put his profile on ConHome.

Chad don't you think it would be a good idea to mention on your Community page that you are not a Conservative Party Member and have your own party?

[Derek]

Although many people claim to be concerned about the environment, as the survey shows it is not a priority issue for most people. This is a big problem for a political leader who wants to put the environment at the centre of his policies. Either he will come up with policies that hurt and upset the majority, or he won't and he will look as though he is being weak.

Anyone who understands the fact that Britain only accounts for 2% of the world's man-made CO2 output will realise that we are unable to do anything about it, unless the industrial nations of the world are willing to agree to severe reductions, which does not look likely.

[Graham Clark]

My understanding is that, since 1980, disposable income has almost doubled, the real cost of motoring has not changed, but public transport fares have increased by one-third.

There is therefore a prima facie case for raising the cost of motoring through eg more road tolls, and hypothecating the revenue to higher public transport subsidies - to level the playing field.

Though with average CO2 emissions per mile of new cars falling, this would have to be accompanied by commensurate improvements in the environmental performance of public transport.

As a Conservative voter (and party member), I think that, if asked, I would have agreed tentatively with the proposition to "increase the cost of motoring to encourage less driving".

[Chad]

Hi a-tracy, I'll do anything that stops this constant childish thread disruption so we can concentrate on attacking ideas not the people here.

I'll send a mail to Sam.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Back to the Environment. Ive just got back from a fascinating hour chatting with Zac Goldsmith - in which we touched upon many aspects of the issues which will be covered in the Quality of Life policy Group. The interview will be put on www.toryradio.com in the coming weeks in two parts. I have to say Zac is very impressive on this subject.

[Esbonio]

I do not want to see an increase in the cost of motoring. From a personal perspective there are hardly any buses serving where I live and the train service from our local town is very erratic. This renders driving a car a necessity not a luxury. As for the cost and income argument not everyone's income has gone up over the last twenty odd years as suggested. Some people have seen a fall in income in real terms as some incomes have failed to keep up with average earnings (e.g. pensioners). The latter have not been helped by disgraceful stealth taxes started by Major but turned into an art form by Brown.

As for Chad, as a party member I have to say that I agree with most of his posts and I entirely undrstand his frustration.

I think the implied suggestion that those who disagree with the current leadership should shut up or shove off is ridiculous. This forum would lose its essential raison d'etre if that were to occur.

From my own perspective many conservatives are dismayed by the leadership's volte face on so many issues. The party inreasingly seems conservative in name only to many who have loyally supported the party in good times and bad.

[Michael McGowan]

Slight correction to an earlier comment: another name for "tribalism" is "blind loyalty". Big and growing problem for the Tories is that for decades, their High Command could count on millions voting Tory deferentially, however much they were despised by the High Command. Those days are over and if Cameron, Maude, Letwin et all were as in touch as they claim to be, the penny would have dropped that those days are not coming back. We don't live in the 1950's any more.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Just remember that this isn't a party of ideology. The reasons why we need greener car policy have nothing to do with being either an environmentalist nor has it anything to do with being anti car.

1. The real costs of motoring aren't met by motorists alone.
2. The reason why you can't live without a car is because we created that situation, it is not inevitable and can be corrected over time. The idea of a car owning democracy was lunacy.
3. One day the oil will run out/become so expensive as to force people out of their cars whatever the govt does.
4. The more roads we build the more cars people drive. We can't build any more roads so we have to find some way of limiting the number of cars which use them. The number of cars has increased massively, in most 'burbs it's a minimum of two per family. They are used more often, for shorter journeys and are mostly used to carry only the driver.
5. The use of cars and the designing of our towns and suburbs around the car is one of the driving factors in urban sprawl. Why should we build our entire lives/cities/suburbs around the car?
6. Climate change.
7. Car owning societies place severe limitations on those who don't have cars. Perhaps if more affluent people had to take public transport then this would mean more mobility for the poor/pensioners too.

[Chad]

I live in a rural area and cars are vital, and rank as much more important than cheap flight deals to faliraki.

We need to change behaviour and reduce the number of flights.

Not only would this help the environment but it might encourage more people to holiday in the UK, and perhaps help the economy too.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

To play devils advocate Chad - so would holidays abroad be only available to the rich?

[Selsdon Man]

Jonathan, what is Zac's kettle policy?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I have to say I bottled it. Though we went through some of the list of 10 put out by the wavenetwork and concluded we both wouldnt score 10 out of 10 Im afraid.

[Andrew Woodman]

Don't think we can really set out to destory the avation industry Chad. There are the business implications to consider as well. Looking into using biofuels would be a better idea imo.

[Account Deleted]

The unfortunate fact is that many of our core voters, who I often agree on with Europe/immigration, are quite often *ahem* likely to shuffle off this mortal coil before the debate on climate change is resolved.

Some of us who are moderate greens would rather not take the risk of having to move to the Pennines/Grampians/Campians...

But that doesn't necessarily mean raising taxes beyond what they are.

The following link describes how, for instance, if we switch to more ethanol based rather than petrol based cars we could cut back emissions in this area quite substantially. Without anyone paying any more than they already do. And there are further refinements on ethanol fuel in terms of reducing CO2 emissions coming on line all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Further the point is that more research needs to be done on 'clean' fuels, renewable energy etc. But this is a much better way of doing things than suggesting we rachet up the cost of energy - no one is actually going to stop using the damn stuff so why don't we start suggesting exploring the alternatives seriously - I hope and pray this is what Zac will do. I remain sceptical, and certainly will not be impressed (and neither will our voters) if he simply comes up with trying to put the clock back 300 years or taxing travel into oblivion...

[Chad]

Hi Jonathan,

Remember the aim is to change behaviour not raise revenue. If the same number of people keep flying but end up paying more, we would not have solved any environmental issues.

Cigarettes are taxed heavily to change behaviour and it has worked. I don't think you would argue that only rich people smoke.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Im not sure flights have the same addictive quality as say nicotine.

If you tax flights to the extend of reducing the number of people who use airlines, then rich people can say - well I am paying the tax - so my conscience is clean - but it will be those on a limited income who won't be able to have that holiday abroad.

[Paul Kennedy]

Henry

According to the figures I have, the Exchequer in 2004/05 collected £24.4 billion in fuel duties alone, on top of that there would be VAT as well as VED, so I think it reasonable to assume that motorists do in fact meet all of the costs of motoring. 67% of the price of a litre of petrol at the pump is tax.

Increasing fuel taxes as a way of reducing demand hits the least well off, hardest.

[Chad]

Without muddying the argument as a rich/poor issue, do you agree that we need to reduce the number of flights?

If so, how do you propose we should do it?

[Esbonio]

The car clearly has problems associated with it but they are far outweighed by the car's capacity to liberate people. Surely we should use technology to improve the car's environmental effects instead of subjecting people to a loss of liberty.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I have to say I dont know enough about the issue. How about this though....

No - the answer is surely we need to reduce the environmental impact of flights, which is something different.

[Mark O'Brien]

Am I completely blinkered and closing myself away from the truth in my passionate belief in capitalism by thinking that the best way to save the planet from airlines and cars and all these anti-green nasties is to do the very opposite to imposing punitive taxation on business?

Planes and cars are here to stay, and that can't be changed. But the best way to cut their effect on the quality of our environment is not to take vast amounts of money from businesses which would otherwise be invested in improved, cleaner technology, but rather we should allow private enterprise to make as much money as they can from transport so that they have more opportunity to invest in cleaner and safer technology.

This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking either. Fuel and transport companies are more and more focussing their biggest PR efforts on proving to the world that their work is clean and good (or at least, not bad) for the environment. Take BP, whose slogan these days is 'Beyond Petroleum'.

Business is accountable to consumers and the media far more than government, therefore it is business which can best lead any green revolution.

(And it shouldn't take an economics degree to see that taxation on fuel and on flights hits low-income families most of all, and it doesn't take much debate to come to the conclusion that this is a bad thing.)

[Paul Kennedy]

"Cigarettes are taxed heavily to change behaviour and it has worked". Chad

That is true, less people are smoking, but it is interesting to note that since 2000/01, tobacco tax receipts have been steadily rising, reaching just over £8.09 billion in 2003/04.

[Chad]

I totally agree that technology should be used as a solution where possible, then if this is not possible, consumption/behaviour must be reduced.

I'll certainly have my order in for a loremo when they come out. Cool and 186mpg! Those Germans know how to make cars.

[Richard Bailey]

Why does everybody in the "can't be arsed to be green" camp make pathetic assumptions that being environmental has to cost more money in every case.

To take one example, we currently pay absurd rates of tax of petrol and diesel costing nearly £1 per litre. Yet our farmers can produce and make a profit on bio diesel that costs around 30p per litre.
That makes a saving in my book.

And another - Most of us currently heat our homes and water by burning oil or gas. Yet for a one off payment, ideally subsidised by goverment, we could all install ground pump water heaters and solar panels that would heat our houses for free after a 5yr break even point.

The Government could have spent what it has spent on the Iraq war and ID Cards and the bloody Dome, creating a new free renewable energy system for this country combining wind, solar, tidal, biomass and thermal sources.

The savings made here would offset aviation impact and high performance cars that drain 60litres of fuel in 20mins would be taxed out of existence.

The main reason for doing any of this, is not because the glaciers are melting (albeit the prospect of most of London drowning amuses me) but because oil is going to run out in our lifetime. Just think about that for a moment.

We'll end up back in Victorian times, that is if we survive the world war fought over the final million barrels.

Click on my blog - I have written three articles on this subject over the past week or so. Frankly, I think that the future of our environment should not be left in the hands of pollsters and the lazy tossers whose only concern is their summer orgy in Ibiza or the status symbol of their flash car.

[No to Oppositionalism]

Why on earth is Chad even part of a conversation among Conservatives?

He is clearly driven by negativity and animus and has no desire to be constructive.

Lest anyone thinks I'm being unfair then have a look at his 'advert' on Guido Fawkes - a childish mock up of Cameron dressed as a clown. That's not the work of someone who wants a debate. Rather it's low grade abuse from someone who is determined to inflict maximum damage on the Conservative Party.

Editor - you are an intelligent and positive person but, as Scotsman has pointed out, CH is now being used to harm the Party. The unscientific 'surveys' are wide open for manipulation by people who are obviously highly motivated and could easily be UKIP-ers or worse. Hostile commentators in the media love any evidence, however dodgy, that 'Conservative supporters' are rejecting Cameron. Is your own ambivalence about certain aspects of Cameronism leading you to be subconsciously overindulgent towards sour and vindictive elements?

I suggest that those posters who are not Tories and who just want to spit bile at us should be actively discouraged.

[Anon]

Those "lazy tossers" have votes. So Formula 1 to be banned I assume? Just lost the votes of hundreds of thousands of people.Do you have a solar panel on your house Mr Bailey? Do you buy your energy from renewable sources?

[Chad]

Richard,

Is geothermal heating the most cost effective way to replace oil and gas? I'm buying a house at the moment that being in a rural area is oil powered and I would like to look at the alternatives.

[Chad]

Why on earth is Chad even part of a conversation among Conservatives?

For the 100th time, I am a small 'c' conservative not a Tory party member. I'll get it added to my profile as a-tracey suggested.

You'll note I didn't call anyone loony or racist!

[Mark O'Brien]

When will we learn that taxation doesn't truly change behaviour (aside from upsetting millions of people, and ruining their livelihoods, of course)?

'Changing behaviour' as far as our attitudes to personal transport is concerned, if it ever will be achieved, then it will be achieved by real leadership from business and politicians and the media in encouraging the people en masse to change behaviour, and then by individuals themselves.

Tax doesn't change behaviour. It ruins us all, I'll admit, but nothing else!

[True Blue]

The only realistic way to reduce the number of flights is to charge duty on aviation fuel. The fact that there is no such duty is an historical accident. This will require US/EU agreement, and would be fought tooth and nail by the air lobby. Seriously, if you had to pick vehicles which didn't pay fuel tax, what would they be? Certainly not aeroplanes. This is a subsidy. A subsidy is another word for a tax.

If fewer people can afford to fly so often - well, that's the idea, isn't it. Flights are so ridiculously cheap now that they do not take up a significant portion of holiday expenditure, so I don't think we'd be spoiling many peoples' holidays.

Redistributing the tax burden to encourage behaviour which does not damage the environment is essential. There is no need to increase the overall cost of motoring, just aim tax at the inefficient.

There are very sound economic incentives for good environmental policies. Many companies make money by offloading their costs onto the State (money coming out of your back pocket), and this should be made explicit, and taxed, subject to tax reductions elsewhere. Oil companies which clean up as they go along (and they do exist) find that they have saved themselves a great deal of money when their oil runs out.

Of course, such companies should pass any addtional costs to consumers, but then the price of goods will be their true cost, not cost minus offset onto taxation. The consumer can then decide what to buy with the environmental cost factored in.

I'd like to emphasise at this point that I want to see taxes reduced and shift around, not increased.

And finally, screw the birds, we need the dam across the Severn - it will give us 7% of all the electricity we need.

[No to Oppositionalism]

And you puerile and personally abusive advert, Chad? What's that all about?

[Andrew Woodman]

Growing crops to proviode biofuel on setaside could provide 5% of our diesel consumption. Would the EU allow this?

[Esbonio]

I have never been to Ibiza but understand many people enjoy going there and they are not as Richard Bailey characterises them. As a conservative who sees freedom as an integral part of my philosophy, I hope they can continue visiting Ibiza as I enjoy visiting Greece. Crude stereotypes hinder rather than advance an argument.

Like Richard I am all for ethanol based fuels which might also improve our agricultural industry. I am also in favour of more fuel efficient cars. However I do not believe we should price existing inefficient cars off the road in order to replace them with new cars if that results in more pollution than would otherwise occur. The same argument applies to replacing "inefficient" old houses with new but costly to construct news ones.

[Chad]

Hi No to Oppositionalism,

And you puerile and personally abusive advert, Chad? What's that all about?
Just read the link the ad points to!

It is not anti-Tory it is an equal criticism of all parties that are supporting state funding of political parties.

My budget is smaller than the loose change you will find down the back of sofas in political party hq's. I need to have catchy ad with a touch of humour to get people to read them.

Just read it, then tell me where I am being unfair. Someone has to oppose state funding, surely?

[Chris Palmer]

Of course Conservatives will be more in favour of motoring than Green taxes. I would have said that was pretty obvious.

[Andrew Woodman]

esbonio, Do you think we should look at policies for getting old rustbuckets off the road. I've always wondered if someone is buying a car for £50, what are the chances it will be taxed, insured and have an MOT. Taking this into account with the envoirnemental damage the car will do, should tax incentives be offered to get these off the road and scrapped.

[No to Oppositionalism]

Chad - I'm also opposed to state funding, but that's not really the point, is it?

How very coincidental that your 'catchy' ad just happens to ridicule David Cameron - the very same man whose every action you denounce on this site.

Most of your attacks on DC have got nothing to do with paying for party politics. If you hate him, just say so. Don't insult our collective intelligence by pretending to be merely an anti-state funding activist looking for a 'catchy' way of making your case...

[Chad]

Chad - I'm also opposed to state funding, but that's not really the point, is it?

Yes, it is 100% point. That is why I am advertising to fight it.

As you will note, out of the two of us, I use my real name and details so people can check those and make up their own mind whether they agree of disagree with me.

However, it is impossible to know the agenda of a poster who insists on hiding their identity.

[Paul Kennedy]

"I've always wondered if someone is buying a car for £50, what are the chances it will be taxed, insured and have an MOT." Andrew Woodman

Nil I would think, and the driver probably wouldn't have a driving licence.

[Chad]

That's not fair! I bought a car for 30 quid once from an auction and taxed it etc. I had no cash (it was a pastel yellow Skoda) but let's not assume those who can only afford a very cheap car are criminals.

[Serf]

Why does everybody in the "can't be arsed to be green" camp make pathetic assumptions that being environmental has to cost more money in every case.

Richard, I think you will find that the root of this problem is the anti-capitalist nature of the green movement.

I agree with you that there are many low cost, or cost neutral things that can be done, but much of the green lobby is committed to No Pain No Gain philosophy.

That is why we Conservatives need to take over the arguments and bring them back down to earth.

[No to Oppositionalism]

My name and even my 'agenda' are irrelevant to the charges I'm laying against you, Chad. You've pointedly ignored what I'm saying:

"How very coincidental that your 'catchy' ad just happens to ridicule David Cameron - the very same man whose every action you denounce on this site.

Most of your attacks on DC have got nothing to do with paying for party politics. If you hate him, just say so."

Care to comment on that?

[Chad]

Sure. Tell me your real name and I will answer any question you like. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear being transparent.

However, why not just email me to stop this thread disruption?

I won't respond to you again to end this tangent, but if you want to email me with your real name and questions, then I will of course answer.

[Esbonio]

Andrew

As I am generally opposed to the distorting effect of tax breaks, I do not favour handing over other taxpayers' money so someone can scrap a perfectly good old car in order to get a new one. And when I say perfectly good, I mean it. Last year I gave a fifteen year old car with over 100k on the clock to a relative. The car was good for at least another 50k and and five years. No rust and very sweet. Scrapping it would have made no sense at all.

If there is a problem with rust buckets, untaxed cars, and uninsured drivers then let us address those problems as we are through law enforcement.

[Esbonio]

And another thing.

It used to be a very good principle of English law not to pass laws that applied retropectively. If you wanted to make changes you should apply them going forward but not backwards. The retrospective application of law was not only seen as unfair ad against natural justice. By making planning less certain and riskier it hindered enterprise and growth. Whilst this principle has taken a battering of late under conservative and labour governments the principle should be upheld for all our sakes.

[Chris Palmer]

Also, surely you can be "Green" without wanting to tax everything like socialists.

[Editor]

The Scotsman: "All this tedious bitching about the Leader is really putting me off this web site."

There is a lot of negativity 'Scotsman' but this is an independent blog not conservatives.com. Cameron enthusiasts have an equal chance of commenting. Unfortunately a lot of them spend more time complaining about the fact that some conservatives are unhappy with the leadership's direction than positively contending for that direction. Gone are the days when the Tory high command can pretend that the grassroots are delighted with everything the leadership is doing. The internet is a powerful force for reversing the centralisation of discussion amongst a few talking heads in the Westminster village. That, for me, is a VERY good thing.

Did you, btw, see my Ten reasons for supporting Project Cameron post of yesterday?

No to Oppositionalism: "The unscientific 'surveys' are wide open for manipulation by people who are obviously highly motivated and could easily be UKIP-ers or worse."

Don't shoot the messenger, NtO!

The surveys are not unscientific. The panel came within 1% of exactly predicting last December's leadership election. Email addresses for DD and DC voters were retained. The new polls have also required email addresses. We found out how the previous DD/DC respondents voted in each of the options of the first question ('satisfied with DC'). The options were then weighted so that there was the correct proportion of DD to DC voters in all - and all other questions weighted accordingly. This weighting is proving to be hardly different from the unweighted numbers. This is because we are recruiting email addresses from Conservative sources. ALL of the email address lists we have been using to recruit members came from the DD and DC campaigns, from Conservative membership organisations and from targeted leafletting at Tory events like Manchester's Spring Forum. No survey is perfect but I am confident that the ConservativeHome Members' Panel is a good guide to opinion in the Tory party.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"If you have issues with me, then please mail me instead of keep repeating them here."

I don't have your email address, Chad. Please email me with your contact details if you wish to continue this discussion elsewhere.

[No to Oppositionalism again]

No need to reply, Chad. There are many, many people who post on this site using pseudonyms. It's strange that you've responded to a number of them without demanding that they reveal their identities to you.

However, the moment one of them (ie - me) starts asking awkward questions about your motives and the inconsistencies in your story, you fall back, rather pathetically, on the 'why should I answer you? I don't know who you are' ruse.

No one's buying it. You're an anti-Cameron obsessive who slags him off endlessly on this site and pays for adverts that ridicule him as a clown. Everything you say should be read in the light of your evident determination to damage him.

Sorry not to take you at your own, absurdly articifial, estimation but the advert gave you away. A bit of a tactical misjudgement, eh?

[Esbonio]

Well said Editor.

I voted for David Davis and am deeply disappointed that David Cameron won. I find the current leadership's policy (if that is the right word) bizarre to say the least. That should not translate however by some weird distortion into my not being a conservative. I believe inter alia in free speech, free enterprise and the rule of law. I abhore socialism and the mess it got us and is still getting us into. And as a conservative I believe in conserving what is good about this country and reforming that which is in need of reform.

I believe the left having lost the moral and itellectual argument in the 20th century is still looking for ways to damage free liberal capitalist societies. And I believe they see the environment as one potential area.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"(DVA, the reason most Con 18-24 year olds surveyed were anti is because almost everyone of that age range prepared to identity prepared to identify as Tory makes Milton Friedman look middle of the road.)"

No distinction was made as to the political preference of the 18-24 year olds, Henry.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

"... I believe the left having lost the moral and itellectual argument in the 20th century is still looking for ways to damage free liberal capitalist societies. And I believe they see the environment as one potential area."

For the love of God, making sure that future generations have air they can breathe, water they can drink whilst making sure our cities do not disappear beneath the waves means that we have to deal with this issue. It is not some left wing conspiracy to enslave all sections of society!

The oil is running out. Bio fuel is an expensive fuel additive which takes almost as much petrol to grow, transport and refine as it saves when you drive your car.

Socialism didn't burn all the oil, cut down the rainforests, fish the seas empty, melt the ice caps or dictate that everything we buy has to have at least three layers of packaging. If you love Capitalism so much it might make sense to do something about ensuring that the lights don't go out. That means taking this issue seriously rather than just using it as an excuse for a quick rant about your courageous defence of liberal capitalism whilst everything goes to hell.

The marxists who have hijacked the environmental lobby are nothing to fear. Only Nixon could go to China. Only the Conservatives can come up with a sensible way to discharge our duty to the environment.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Mr Chairman, there is an irony about the environmental problems which now confront us. Since the beginning of civilisation, the main damage to our way of life has come from human malevolence and destructiveness, from wars, from weapons, from hostility, from conflicts.

Now, the damage to the environment comes from the actions of millions of people conducting peaceful activities which contribute to their health, their well-being and their work in agriculture or industry, activities in other words which are perceived as beneficial.

But Mr Chairman, no matter at what degree of latitude we live, ozone depletion will severely affect us all, just as will global climate change.[fo 5]

The conclusion is clear. It is no good some of us acting to solve the problems while others go on as before. The problems will only be solved by common action and every country must play its full part and every citizen can help.

...Now, who do we think said that?

I'll tell you who. Mrs T, in 1989.

She finished by calling climate change "the greatest challenges which life on earth has yet faced"

...and you people say DC isn't a proper keeper of the sacred flame?

[anon]

Editor, why don't you charge Chad for all the free advertising? Guido apparently makes a fair bit out of him.

[Esbonio]

Henry

Do you not agree that the left lost the moral and intellectual argument in the 20th century and will use proxy issues including the environment to advance their cause?

Of course I am naturally concerned "that future generations have air they can breathe, water they can drink" etc etc.

"The oil is running out." Yes I fully appreciate oil is a finite resource. I remember sitting in candle light in the last energy crisis in the 70s under Ted Heath's 3 day week. That is why I favour nuclear power.

You say that "Socialism didn't burn all the oil....", maybe not. But it still has a poor record on the environment (China now, the USSR before (desertification, the Aral sea etc)).

On a personal level I do as much as I can to save energy. Low energy bulbs everywhere I can fit them. Double glazing and insulation. Fuel efficient car. Only a couple of flights a year. Below average household mileage. Considered and ruled out a heat pump on grounds uneconomic. And I maintain woodland as further contribution to the environment.

I do take environmental issue seriously although I think our options are limited. That is why I feel nuclear power is so important.

I am not sure what you mean about a "courageous defence of liberal capitalism" alhough I reiterate my belief in it as I am sure any right thinking conservative who can remember the horrors of the 70s and Communism might.

As for Lady T, she was a great prime minister whom I had much pleasure in meeting at the time. Her supply side reforms provided the basis for the economic growth of which Gordon Brown boasts whilst steadily unpicking it. Neverthless I do have some doubts about the extent of climate change and the motives of of the doomsters. Either way we are not going to solve any problems by damaging the global economy. We need growth and new technology to fund and solve the problems.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

If you read the rest of that speech, Mrs T goes on to promise a future of milk and honey based on further technical innovation. It hasn't happened. Like most of those in a deep state of denial, you're splitting your hopes for the future between a few energy saving lightbulbs and nuclear.

Ah, nuclear energy. Expensive. Dangerous. Unsustainable. 50 years ago we were promised almost free, abundant, electricity for all eternity. Now most of our nuclear plants will need decommissioning, at an estinated cost to the taxpayer of £70 billion pounds, thats just the latest estimate. We don't know what we're going to do with most of the waste, never mind what we're going to do with the high grade waste. Still, we have several thousand years to ponder that. Ironically, the peaceful use of nuclear technology may end up posing a more direct threat to human lives than nuclear weapons. In 50 years we'll just have to do this again. That is assuming there hasn't been an accident or a terrorist attack.

It really says something when people would rather inflict the responsibility for dealing with our adventures with nuclear technology on future generations rather than make changes in their lifestyle.

I simply don't understand people who campaign against wind farms but would rather see a nuclear plant erected in their place. Which is kinda funny since the locations are often the same, since Nuke plants need isolated areas on the coast.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"The only realistic way to reduce the number of flights is to charge duty on aviation fuel..."

Whilst I agree with the general point you're making in your comment (too long to quote in full!) True Blue, I would also like to see a minimum distance policy implemented for commercial flights within the British mainland that would eliminate ridiculously short routes (Bristol-Plymouth anyone?) that are covered by train journeys of a viable length and cost.

[Richard]

Firstly, the argument between Chad and others is irrelevent to this thread. Can you please take it elsewhere? (And don't say "he started it", I really don't care.)

Secondly, any attempt to penalise car or aircraft use will shaft the Tories at the election, especially the former. What is needed is technological advance to bring about a cheap alternative to oil.

It is a pity that motoring has become so dominant but it is unlikely that the public would favour the rebuilding of the railways and the removal of the roads. As a car driver I can appreciate why.

Interesting that not many people have made the free market argument i.e. as oil becomes more expensive, resources will be diverted to alternative sources of energy.

[Esbonio]

Well said Richard.

[Chad]

Secondly, any attempt to penalise car or aircraft use will shaft the Tories at the election, especially the former.

Isn't that the essence of the problem Richard? If "green" policies are proposed that do not force people to change their behaviour, and thus are (believed-to-be) vote-friendly, are likely to just be superficial?

As a result, the previously published list of actions "to be the change" don't even scratch the surface of the change that is needed internationally.

If you are not going to propose real change then far from being voter-friendly you could equally come across an insincere.

Interesting that not many people have made the free market argument i.e. as oil becomes more expensive, resources will be diverted to alternative sources of energy.
Alternatively there are many known oil fields that are not currently being exploited because they are more expensive to drill and thus uneconomic. If the oil price continues to rise, these known but untapped sources will become economic again, so rises oil prices can also help supply to a certain extent.

(ps Tim is updating my profile to clearly note that I am not a Tory and that all my words should be treated with extreme suspicion!)

[Mark Fulford]

According to the figures I have, the Exchequer in 2004/05 collected £24.4 billion in fuel duties alone, on top of that there would be VAT as well as VED, so I think it reasonable to assume that motorists do in fact meet all of the costs of motoring.

That all depends on how you value the damage to the environment.

"The main reason for doing any of this, is not because the glaciers are melting (albeit the prospect of most of London drowning amuses me)"

Shameful plug coming... If you're interested to see the effects of rising sea levels, there's PC software called Fractal Terrains that contains Earth in 3D and allows you to tinker with sea level as you wish.

[matt wright]

Some of the environmentalism needs rural-proofing and north-proofing. It is easy if you are living in a large city to say "oh I don't need to use my car I can go on the tube etc". Here in Wales we are a large dispersed rural area with poor public transport that will never be viable on the scale of cities. We need our cars, they are vital to our lives and to meeting other people and living. Also since we build the wings for passenger jets we need taxes on plane travel like a hole in the head. It would kill thousands of our jobs. We are also getting the wind turbines other people don't want and it is wrecking our tourism and is highly inefficient. Environmentalism is important but as a party we must look at it in a more sensible way,

Matt

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Dear Henry Whitman,
Henry, stop tormenting yourself over the fate of planet Earth;I expect Iran will eventually take care of all of your problems, and petrol, if there is any, will be too expensive. Iran is developing nuclear power (for domestic purposes) so nuclear power must be quite safe. No worries. Take an asprin and have an early night.

[Annabel Herriott]

Chad must be either self employed or have an indulgent boss, or is having a few days holiday. I noticed before, but have just counted up for interest. Chad posted 13 times between 11.56 and 16.05. During that time, I did a voluntary shift at our Hospice. What was he doing this afternoon apart from being the individual against the collective???

[Chad]

I noticed before, but have just counted up for interest.
Up countinng member posts after midnight? You must find yourself a hobby Annabel! You're getting a bit obsessive. :-)

At least you're not an elected pro-Cameroonian Tory representative firing abuse at me under the cloak of anonymity.

What's the aim here? To drive me first, the anyone else who dares to question the Cameroonian strategy off the site? No-one told me this was an homage to Dave.

If your want open discussion, with a range of bias from different people, all together creating a balanced view, why not lay off the abuse and focus on the issues? People are intelligent enough for themselves to read a mix of views and form their own opinion. They don't need you to tell them what to think.

I'm not going anywhere and although I can see the dogs have been let out and the rule of avoiding personal abuse does not apply to me, my shoulders are broad enough.

The only time I have to post of topic is to defend personal attacks from Tories.

Chill out! There's no need to get so up tight. We're only discussing ideas here! :-)

From this point on, let's attack the issues, not the contributors? Deal?

[Annabel Herriott]

No Chad , It's your obsessive behaviour that is concerning. Off thread, and over the last two days, exceptionally frequent. Nothing to do with DC is it? It's about the John Lennon Party that you Imagine. I do think you should read up on him before you make him your basic tenet. Brilliant musician. Yes, absolutely. Nice human being? Absolutely not. Cynthia Lennon had to bring up their child alone when he dumped her.. Fatherless child. Then there was the recreational drugs. Then there was the spats and quarrels with the rest of the Beatles. You forget that a lot of people posting here are contempories of the Beatles, and may be a tad puzzled by him being the centre piece of you new Imagine Party.

[Chad]

This is truly bizarre Annabel. All the abuse on this thread has come because Tim quoted something I had written that he agreed with.

I'm not here to discuss anything but conservative themes; small government, low tax environment etc, and only criticise policies that seem to contravene what used to be core conservative values.

This is a site that clearly notes it is about bringing 'conservatives' (note the small 'c') together. It does not say it is a site for Tory party members.

If that changes, as a-tracey has already tried to note, then many of us will have to leave.

Yes, I think the party has made a major error voting in DC, and I was party to making that mistake. I believe he has been overpromoted. His conference speech seems like John Barnes' goal against Brazil, promising so much, but never reaching those heights again.

I don't think anyone can be unaware that I am a Cameron critic.

So what more can I do? I have submitted my updated profile to note that I am not a party member.

Yes or No. Are you seeking to drive me off the site?

[Richard]

"What was he doing this afternoon apart from being the individual against the collective???"

I should have thought Tories would be all for opposing collectivism.

May I recommend Ayn Rand's Anthem? She wasn't a Tory but it's a rather good (if slightly weird) critique of collectivism.

http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I'm not worried about the environment, I'm worried about energy security. Matt, would you rather they built a nuclear plant like Wylfa rather than a few wind farms?

I'm also a little puzzled by this suggestion that it is impossible to live without a car either in "The North" or "Rural" areas. I live in Herefordshire, the most rural county in England and am at university in Durham and enjoy excellent public transport in both. They do have a metro network in Newcastle, although I'm sure most people on this board would doubt reports that they even had electricity. Speaking as someone who lives in a rural area I can tell you that nothing causes more vandalism to a small market town or cathedral city than the car or the lack of decent public transport. Also, nobody has noticed that car use and car dependence is a self reinforcing cycle. The reason you have to get in the car to go to the local supermarket or the post office is precisely because people doing that has killed off local shops and post offices.

The problem on this board is the refusal to accept the facts of the situation. You're all letting ideology drown out the facts. If we do not take simple measures now to reduce the ammount of oil, gas and electricity we use then we will reap the consequences which will have terrible consequences for our economy. Time and money spent now future proofing our economy will give us an advantage over other economies which lack the technology and foresight to do likewise.

[Chad]

Hi Henry,

I'm also a little puzzled by this suggestion that it is impossible to live without a car either in "The North" or "Rural" areas. I live in Herefordshire, the most rural county in England and am at university in Durham and enjoy excellent public transport in both.

Wait until you have kids or a job before being so confident in rural buses.

Yes I agree that it is probably not *too* hard to get about in rural areas without a car if you only have yourself to worry about.

But what about mums who need to drop the kids off at school, then go to work, maybe pop to the shops atlunchtime, pick up the kids. Then what if one kid has an out of school activity etc?

Also, there are sad people like me who have to go to work before the buses start and even though I am commuting up to London, there are many people travelling to local business at 5:00 in the morning.

For many in the country, cars are essential. I totally agree with the drive to use mor efficient ones, but wanted to counter your argument that it is easy to get about in the country without one.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I got the bus from the village where I live to Hereford every morning from the age of 8.

Again, you're not invalidating my main point. If fewer people travelled by car then our lives would adapt to cope with it, as would our public transport infrastructure so that we wouldn't need cars so much. By saying that you can't live without a car because your life is based around a car is begging the question. Even twenty years ago people used their cars much less than they do now and civilisation somehow managed to survive.

With subsidised tickets, conductors, and bus lanes they're are now quicker, safer and cheaper than driving a car. In Durham, the local council just threw all the cars out of the city centre. Now it's a much nicer place and businesses like the extra footfall.

Why should town councils spend their whole time debating bypasses and parking and congestion? Motorists need to start thinking about other people.

[Richard]

With subsidised tickets, conductors, and bus lanes they're are now quicker, safer and cheaper than driving a car.

Ah ha! The key word there is "subsidised". If people are so keen to use busses then why do they need to be subsidised? Shouldn't local residents be able to choose whether they want to use the bus instead of being compelled to hand over their money by law?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Car drivers are also subsidised. The ammount you pay in tax covers nowhere near the true costs of motoring. Motorists have their every whim catered to. Need a road? Need a bypass? Need a carpark? Need an extra lane on the motorway? Never mind, we'll shoo those pesky pedestrians, protestors, trees and wildlife out of your way, because you're all so excitable when you get behind the wheel of a car.

Should local residents be forced to buy a car just to get to the shops?

Also, one bus at 8.45am = about 20 cars. They're doing you a favour

[Chad]

Also, one bus at 8.45am = about 20 cars. They're doing you a favour

Henry,

One bus at 5:15am with one passenger or one car that does 186mpg with one passenger?

So what if you ban cars and ensure these journeys are all replaced by buses?

Your idea would have a whole load of near or completely empty buses rattling along empty lanes 24 hours a day.

Where's the benefit to the environment in that?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Chad, as I am sure you are aware, bus companies own many busses and may make much more by serving some routes than others, which allow them (in accordance with the contracts they sign with non-spineless-local councils) to serve the less busy routes as well. Whilst there are some routes which for good reasons are not served 24 hours a day, when they are they by definition cut down on traffic and lower CO2 emissions.

As the leader of a political party, it would be nice to know you could consider a senario which did not specifically include you. Perhaps you could discuss the possibility for your own personal teleporter on the unused forums on your party's website. Merely because a bus service is impractical for you it must therefore be impractical for everyone who may possibly need to travel?

I am not arguing that cars should be banned. I am arguing that a small increase in the quantity and quality of public transport in addition to measures like bus lanes will mean that fewer people need to use cars every day. If people can be lured out of their cars there will be less traffic, which is better for the people who would be stuck in it and for the environment. Calm down, nobody's going to force you out of your car.

[Chad]

As the leader of a political party, it would be nice to know you could consider a senario which did not specifically include you.

What a bizarre response! I countered your argument that only discussed your personal experience with the buses to university by raising the problems faced by mums and workers.

I am a worker, but I can reassure you that I am not a mum.

[The Cowboy Capitalist]

Shouldnt we question the threat before spending time establishing a policy to tackle it? If every gas-guzzling American SUV remained off the road for an entire year, the global emissions total would reduce by a whopping 0.2403% of its current total. We can assume that the impact made by taxing big car users in the UK would be even less significant. Do we have a policy on Chinese power plants?

[Mike]

Our policy on Chinese powerplants should be to build them, but since we recently sold our entire nuclear construction and maintenance infrastructure to the Japanese and the Dutch, it doesn't look like that's going to be happening. If Britain disappeared overnight, annual CO2 emmissions would reduce by an irrelevent 2%. There really is nothing we can do, even if global warming caused by human activity exists, which I am not convinced is certain or even likely.

Not to mention that environmental policy is an EU COMPETENTNCY and nothing to do with local councils at all, who are basically administrators and can do nothing more than implement the EU's will.

We should be expending much more effort and focus on developing our economy (which is losing businesses to foreign competitors at a rate of knots - foreigners bought $45bn worth of British businesses last year and we bought £1bn worth of foreign businesses in return) rather than on this damaging, inefficient enviro-nonesense which we can't do anything about even if it is of any importance! Oh, and we should withdraw from the EU who are the main cause of all of this stupid environmental legislation. Oh wait, anyone who talks about the EU in the Compassionate (un)Conservative party is blacklisted from any cabinet post now.

[Chris]

> 2. The idea of a car owning democracy was lunacy.

Are you sure you're in the right party? Surely you should be a member of the ControlfreakDems or Socialist Workers Party?

The private car is the single most liberating invention ever. It's something most people aspire to, because it gives them freedom to travel when and where they want, free of control by Councils and Officials. If the Tory Party want to massively increase their vote they should promise to abandon Labour's anti-freedom attacks on the car, scrap all the speed cameras which are universally hated by the population, abandon plans for road pricing, and re-open Labour's bus lanes to traffic again.

6. Climate change.

The press and public are waking up to the fact that 'Global Warming' is a con trick, perpetrated on us by the Left who have latched on to some very dodgy science to force us to accept Socialism by the back door when we've unequivocally rejected it through the front door. The climate has always changed and will always change, regardless of Man's activities.

Here's a simple guide to climate change:

Is the climate changing? Yes.
Are we causing it? No.
Can we stop it? No.