Vote blue and go green

The Cameron Leadership blog's Daniel Lucraft thought he had entered a parallel universe when he got up this morning:

"I’m rubbing my eyes as the Today programme wakes me up this morning, and the headline I hear is something like: 'David Cameron launches final stage of campaign with the slogan “Vote Blue, Go Green”, while the Lib Dems are showcasing their crime reduction strategies.’  I know I’ve been away for a while, but surely not that long! What kind of topsy-turvy world is this?"

It wasn't a dream, however, Daniel.  Mr Cameron launched his 'vote blue, go green' manifesto (pdf version here) earlier today and it included some very specific ways in which Tory councils are already delivering environmentally-friendly results:

• "Barnet Council’s recycling scheme has resulted in its recycling rate of household waste rising from 8 per cent to almost 30 per cent since 2002: more than three in four households now participate in the weekly ‘black box’ scheme.
• Brentwood Borough Council’s kerbside collection scheme has increased the rate of recycling and composting to 30 per cent.
• Bromley Council is pioneering a project to convert used cooking oil into biodiesel, which will be used to power the Council’s vehicles.
• Enfield Council’s Environmental Crime Unit has clamped down on fly-tipping, graffiti and abandoned vehicles – which between 2003 and 2004 fell by 30 per cent.
• Richmond Council’s recycling scheme of weekly kerbside collections has resulted in households recycling more than 25 per cent of the waste they produce. 20,000 tons a year of rubbish no longer go into landfill.
• Shropshire Council has achieved a 25 per cent reduction in CO2 with a goal of 40 per cent by 2010 - double the Labour target.
• Westminster City Council’s graffiti and fly-posting removal team clears over 200 sites a month."

Launching the manifesto Mr Cameron said that green issues would dominate the final stage of the Tory local election campaign although he also took the opportunity to remind voters that "Conservative councils charge £81 a year less on Band D bills than Labour councils, and £88 a year less than Liberal Democrat councils in England" (also see here).  Mr Cameron leaves for his Norwegian glacier fact-finding trip/ photo opportunity later this week.

Matthew Sinclair sees the environment as Mr Cameron's dog-whistle issue.  It builds support amongst middle class voters without upsetting other voters who worry more about crime and immigration.

Comments

[James Hellyer]

It ill behoves someone jetting off on a photo opportunity to lecture other people on environmental responsibility.

[Mark Fulford]

It ill behoves someone jetting off on a photo opportunity to lecture other people on environmental responsibility.

That depends on whether the good done is greater than the environmental damage caused. If 3 flights are not taken because David Cameron took 2, we have a saving of 1. If 30 are not taken, we have a saving of 28. I see this as a low expense, low risk activity with a good chance of an excellent return on investment - but then I'm not out to snipe at everything Cameron does.

[Richard North]

"Some of the green lobby and a lot of the media tend to look at the environment and climate change as, look you've got a binary choice, you can either have economic growth or you can have a sustainable environment, and the truth is we've got to have both. We've got to have green growth," says the Boy King.

Way to go Dave! That's the way to pull in the voters!

I can see them flocking to the polls, throbbing with excitement as they exercise their "binary choice".

[James Hellyer]

I see this as a low expense, low risk activity with a good chance of an excellent return on investment

I see this as the height of hypocrisy. It's hardly living the change he wants to be.

As the linked article shows, the glacier itself doesn't even support the stated reason for the trip.

but then I'm not out to snipe at everything Cameron does.

Neither am I, but thank you for poisoning the wells of debate.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

This campaign is probably the first aspect of Cameron's Conservatives™ that I have absolutely no reservations about endorsing wholeheartedly.

[Chad]

Nothing wrong with the aims as such, but the execution could have backfired if Labour had been a bit more on the ball.

No-one bothered to register the domain VoteBlueGoGreen.com*, so by tomorrow, Labour could have had another spoof site running that,if indexed well, would come top of the google ranks in the morning and so brought loads of free publicity as people search the net etc. All for less than a fiver.

As with the half-amusing Dave the Chameleon has shown, Labour are ahead on using the net at the moment. You can imagine the viral movies they'll be working on too.
The internet is about much more than blogs.

*Yes, I registered it for Imagine. :-)

[Editor]

You are 100% right Chad. The Tories should have registered that domain name.

[Richard]

"This campaign is probably the first aspect of Cameron's Conservatives™ that I have absolutely no reservations about endorsing wholeheartedly."

I also endorse it. My only fear though is that the environment is not high on the list of voter priorities. That said, if people vote according to local rather than national issues then I expect environment comes higher up.

[Tom Weiss]

This is a very positive move. Most green policies are by now common sense for most people, but neither of the main two parties have taken a strong line in pushing forwards these common sense changes. By adopting a position that people would not previously have associated with the Conservatives, Cameron repositions us effectively in the mind of individuals while committing us to policies that support the Conservative values of preserving our "green and pleasant land".

Of course, the challenge will be for him to continue with the green mantra over the longer term.

[wasp]

The binary choice thing shows how left wing the BBC is.

Each time DC has talked about this on today, they've asked him that question, they don't seem to understand that the only way to beat climate change is to have green growth. Its the only thing nations will sign up for.

[Annabel Herriott]

Re Vote blue go green - I might be"green", myself, but why cant you just register it now? Or is that a stupid question?

[John Hustings]

The truth is that barely anyone's vote will be changed because of a "green" agenda. If anyone amongst the public think that climate change is something David Cameron can personally affect then they're a bit dim (that's if it is something humans affect anyway, of which I'm not convinced).

But I suppose proponents of this "green" approach will argue that while the environment isn't high on voters' concerns, it will affect how the voters think about the Tories overall. Excellent point, and I think they're right, but not in the way they think.

Rather than showing David Cameron "cares", which is presumably the point of this approach, these Glacier-melting photo opportunities look opportunistic and hollow. Furthermore, it gives the impression of the Tories being elitist, snobbish and out of touch with voters concerns (something we already had problems with). When the voters are worried about the crime in their neighbourhood, the education of their kids, healthcare etc, and they see David Cameron going on about such a trivial fringe issue, do you really think that it makes him more attractive to them?

There's only one word for what David Cameron is doing for the image of our party. He is making us look:

Irrelevant!!

[wicks]

From another angle though, the people in society who will be affected first and worst by any serious climate change effects, will be the worst off in society. The challenge for Cameron is to demonstrate to these people that this will be the case.

[John Hustings]

You'd have to have a pretty naive belief in the power of the British government to believe that David Cameron can do very much about climate change.

[wicks]

Green politics is a bigger issue than just climate change though. If you read the "'vote blue, go green' manifesto" there's a lot of quality of life issues tackled there which are relevant to peoples everyday lives.

Also, reducing our dependece on non renewable fuels, whilst not only doing our bit for the world environment, just makes good economic sense for us as well.

[John Hustings]

"Green politics is a bigger issue than just climate change though. If you read the "'vote blue, go green' manifesto" there's a lot of quality of life issues tackled there which are relevant to peoples everyday lives."

Nevertheless, David Cameron has most definitely put the focus onto Climate Change. In doing so, he is attempting to make it look like he has the answers to the (supposed) problem. He quite obviously doesn't. All he can do is look sympathetically at a Norwegian glacier.

Environmental issues in local politics is a different matter.

[James Hellyer]

Environmental issues in local politics is a different matter.

Indeed they are. People in my constituency, for example, could relate to the campaign to stop an experimental biomass generator being built in one town. That was something people could appreciate would impact on their lives for the worse.

A politician simpering at a glacier does not convey the same message.

[wicks]

That's such a backward attitude. Firstly you seem to have an issue with climate change. That's ok, and I guess there are some scientists who would agree with you, but I'm happy to go with the overwhelming scientific opinion on this subject and its probably wise for Cameron to do the same, he would just be shot down in flames if he tried to side with a minority viewpoint.

Britain could be world leaders in green politics. If we could show that greener politics and economic prosperity go hand in hand (which ultimately they do) then you can bet other nations would follow. There is no future in fossil fuel, the fact that getting ourselves off it goes hand in hand with the good of the world environment just makes it a really obvious policy route to go down.

[Mark Fulford]

"...thank you for poisoning the wells of debate."

I don't subscribe to your list of false arguments. If motive is important to criminal proceedings, it’s important to debate too.

[James Hellyer]

I don't subscribe to your list of false arguments.

That's because you substitute them for arguments.

If motive is important to criminal proceedings, it’s important to debate too.

This being a motive that you made up. Well done.

[James Hellyer]

There is no future in fossil fuel, the fact that getting ourselves off it goes hand in hand with the good of the world environment just makes it a really obvious policy route to go down.

What do you propose replacing fossil fuel plants with and over what timescale?

[Tim Aker]

Marvellous! And what am i meant to say to people on the doorstep who bring up council tax and crime as issues? How is it we can make all sorts of pledges on the environment now, but none on council tax!

Someone tell Mr. Cameron there's a world out there beyond Notting Hill.

[Selsdon Man]

This comes out less than three weeks before polling day. Postal voters, especially those going on holiday, will send in their ballot papers within the next few days.

Mr Cameron is jetting off to Norway when he should be touring target and marginal councils. This is simply not good enough.

[John Hustings]

"Someone tell Mr. Cameron there's a world out there beyond Notting Hill."

Perhaps the electorate will tell him.

[James Hellyer]

Perhaps the electorate will tell him.

They's just get the reply that we hadn't changed enough.

[John Hustings]

"They's just get the reply that we hadn't changed enough. "

That's true, it will be the party members fault. I forgot. Sorry James, thanks for reminding me.

[batman]

Perhaps I am being a little simple but there seems to be some very disconnected thinking on climate change.

The way I see it is as follows:

1) CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since the Industrial revoltion.

2) The only way to prevent climate change is to reduce CO2 levels to those prevailing at that time.

3) There are now 6 billion humans on the planet vs. 1 bn. then.

4) Ergo, we need to produce 1/6 of the CO2 per capita now than we did then.

5) This is manifestly impossible. Therefore we need to try and understand what the potential effects will be and endeavour to mitigate them in the most cost effective way possible.

6) This should not preclude measures to incentivise the citizenry to produce less CO2 but those measures have to be politically possible in democracies.

7) Leadership is about persuading the people to adopt such measures even though they may not be popular. It is about leading from the front. It is not about spouting meaningless twaddle.

[Andrew Price]

This is excellent in appealing to the Yuppie London Media/City types.

Trust me, I sit in an office of 25-35 year olds all earning £100k and above, and the only political issue they seem to raise is the 'Environment'.

Crime is not an issue as they live in South Ken, Taxation isn't as they earn enough.... the Environment - Oh recycling makes them feel good!

Obviously me and you know that the decisions that these people make on a daily basis are far from ethical, and jetting off to the Alps every weekend does little to help either. However - they want to help the environment, the thought counts. Separating those green bottles, plastics and paper before they drive to work in their BMW X5 still makes them feel good.

[Rick]

I thought much of this was water vapour. That human beings exhale CO2 and inhale oxygen, that most CO" was recycled through the oceans and through the Amazon forests.

In 1969 the Club of Rome told us all about the impending shortage of oil so OPEC decided to price the stuff accordingly and full-employment ended in the 1973 Recession; then the Iranians decided to squeeze some more and we had the 1978 Revolution.

Just what apocalypse do these people now want ? Ship all manufacturing to China so we can import everything ? Are these "green" types congratulating Ryton car workers tonight on their liberation from the Peugeot factory ?

I don't quite understand why nuclear power pays a Climate Change levy ? Does anyone here want to pay 17.5% VAT on gas and electricity as the last Conservative Government proposed and Labour cut back to 5% ?

Does anyone wat to pay 17.5% VAT on water ?

Is Cameron going to campaign on the Tory policy of 17.5% VAT on domestic energy costs ?

Just how will they "sell" the power cuts to the public - they were not very popular in 1974 but at least BBC shut down at 10.30pm and candles had a renaissance

[James Hellyer]

This is excellent in appealing to the Yuppie London Media/City types.

Are there many of them in key marginal seats?

[Voice from the South West]

Not many around our part of the world I would imagine James.

I have to say I'm a bit sceptical about this. Does anyone think an election logo of "vote blue - go green" well, a bit gimmicky? I need more convincing.

[Andrew Price]

"Are there many of them in key marginal seats?"

They live all over London... and London will be a huge test for us in May.

[Andrew Price]

Of course it is 'gimmicky', but it will appeal to a lot of people.

Its mood music, its changing the brand. We can laugh all we like about these 'gimmicks' but to some people the environment is a major issue. To me its not, but I have some friends (not lefties) who are obsessed by it. All this is good.

I'm going over old ground, but i'm still not sure some of you actually did comprehend just how damaged the 'Conservatives' brand actually was.....

[Andrew Woodman]

Just had a non political friend of mine remark on this unprompted. He's impressed and converted himself to a Tory voter. This is the sort of thing which will attract the young professional vote.

[Mark Fulford]

I don't subscribe to your list of false arguments.

That's because you substitute them for arguments.

No, it's because the "poisoning the well" defence is an artificial construct to prevent fisticuffs in the debating society. To point out that a well is poisonous is not only valid, it is not the same as poisoning it.

Still, at risk of quoting you, shall we debate the main point rather than the throw away line? As with any enterprise, environmental campaigning is about getting a return on your investment. If David Cameron could have achieved the same result from less resources, it was indeed wasteful. However, to use resources in an environmental campaign is not hypocritical by definition.

[James Hellyer]

No, it's because the "poisoning the well" defence is an artificial construct to prevent fisticuffs in the debating society. To point out that a well is poisonous is not only valid, it is not the same as poisoning it.

That's just wrong. It's because that form of argument assumes that any points someone makes can be dismissed simply because of who they are - which is the implication of your comments. It takes no account of what they actually say.

If David Cameron could have achieved the same result from less resources, it was indeed wasteful.

Please demonstrate that his photoshoot at a non-retreating glacier will change people's behaviour. I don't think it will.

Or even that the same "result" couldn't have been achieved without jetting around the world.

[Esbonio]

Rick

Thank you for reminding us of the Tories rotten use of stealth taxes in the 1990s.

[Mark Fulford]

It's because that form of argument assumes that any points someone makes can be dismissed simply because of who they are

No, past comments provide texture to current comments. Some people use understatement, others use exaggeration; some are antagonists, some are pacifists: experience teaches us how to read their comments.

Please demonstrate that his photoshoot at a non-retreating glacier will change people's behaviour. I don't think it will.

I can’t prove it any more than you can disprove it. My judgment is that it will get sufficient media coverage to justify the expense.

[John Hustings]

"No, past comments provide texture to current comments. Some people use understatement, others use exaggeration; some are antagonists, some are pacifists: experience teaches us how to read their comments."

I'm definitely an understated pacifist.

[Sean Fear]

For most voters "the Environment" means protecting the Green Belt (if they live outside the M25 corridor)and/or keeping the roads and parks clean.

Looking sympathetically at glaciers just doesn't resonate with them.

[matt wright]

I totally disagree with the statement "there is no future in fossil fuel". I think we must take the environmental arguments above the gimmicky. We have a great opportunity to be "environmental" and practical and wise. Labour have dodged doing anything sensible about energy policy. In stead we have had barmy wind farms etc. There is much concern about energy and costs of fuel eg to pensioners and businesses. Also of major realted concern is security of supply. Yet here we are an island built on coal and surrounded by seas under which there is also coal. We have hundreds of years of supplies and the technology to get the coal and in many cases convert it into gas to use in modern efficent generators and sequestrate the CO2. This modern technology is far removed from the old idea of miners and dust. Technologies such as Underground Gasification of Coal etc. This would buy us loads of time to get nuclear technology sorted and safer and build the nuclear plants of the future. Its a bloody no-brainer. Forget the windfarms and lets harness our clean coal technologies and lead the world.

Matt

[Richard Shackleton]

"Please demonstrate that his photoshoot at a non-retreating glacier will change people's behaviour. I don't think it will."

"I can’t prove it any more than you can disprove it. My judgment is that it will get sufficient media coverage to justify the expense."

Early enquiries are not promising. More than a few hacks see this as an excuse for a giant piss-take.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>That depends on whether the good done is greater than the environmental damage caused. If 3 flights are not taken because David Cameron took 2, we have a saving of 1. If 30 are not taken, we have a saving of 28. I see this as a low expense, low risk activity with a good chance of an excellent return on investment - but then I'm not out to snipe at everything Cameron does.<<<<
The effects of climate change are world wide, it's not just a matter of melting glaciers, it's not localised to any one place and in themselves local effects individually do not show global warming as there is never an even change and some areas get warmer faster and others even potentially cooler in the common years, what shows the overall effects of golbal warming is the sum total of data being collected and changes compared and historical data analysed - you can go and look at glaciers and sure you will see bits breaking off but it always was thus, you can't stand in front of a glacier and picture all the glaciers simultaneously and see where the ice and snow is thickening and where it is retreating - satellite images can show you that sort of thing.

You also can't see the ozone layer with the human eye, but satellite images again can show this and incidences of sunburn due to the ozone hole spreading over populated areas is an effect that can be verified by both instrument measurements and anectdotally by increased cases of sunburn coming into doctors surgeries off the West of Scotland.

You can go to Bangladesh and see flooding but what are you comparing it against if you've never been to look before.

All this referring to things by colours, apparently the fact that most grasses are green is actually due to the type of light that the sun was giving off billions of years ago early on in it's life, apparently plants would actually more efficently use solar energy to photosynthesise if they were purple but the disadvantage just isn't big enough for any rapid change to occur.

I blame the Green Party for calling themselves that in the first place, why they couldn't just have stuck with the name Ecology Party which actually described what they were trying to do.

Snot is Green
Whales are sometimes Blue
Then there are Tangerines
And chilli's are of various hues!

[Richard]

"For most voters "the Environment" means protecting the Green Belt (if they live outside the M25 corridor)and/or keeping the roads and parks clean."

Agreed. If the campaign was based around issues such as this then I have no doubt it would be successful.

Let us hope that other issues such as crime and council tax are covered by local campaigners.

[simon clewer]

Environmentalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The greenies should be aggressively opposed as purveyors of anti-science, ignorance and lies. Thinking men despair.

[Account Deleted]

I agree with Simon Clewer.

SHAME ON CHURCHILL FOR BRINGING IN THE CLEAN AIR ACTS!!!!

Everyone knows that without any kind of regulation, legislation or oversight the environment would be fine.

[Account Deleted]

So there.

[Richard]

"Everyone knows that without any kind of regulation, legislation or oversight the environment would be fine."

Or those who pollute and cause damage to the property of others could be sued under a free market system of private property rights. This might be difficult in some cases though.

[simon clewer]

The party should be very suspect of joining the "greenies". It will cost some of the intellectual core of the right wing constituency. Many people hold the greenies to be some kind of anti-science cult, that they are the un-enlightenment.

There are those who believe that greenies know little beyond media and that they measure themselves not by the good that they do, but simply by what they do .... "we don't know how to generate electricity but we do know how to stop an electricity generating programme".

The greenies are natural leftwing ... "how much of other peoples wealth can we destroy on pointless policies".

A bit of easy publicity is not worth the party's intellectual and scientific integrity.