Tory members unconvinced by climate change emphasis

For the last survey of the ConservativeHome panel we asked "Which of these three is the biggest international challenge facing Britain today?"

The answers suggest that Tory members would prefer David Cameron to spend at least as much time addressing security and economic issues as he has invested in environmental concerns:

• Economic competition from China, India and other emerging nations... 34%
• Global warming and other forms of environmental decay... 7%
• Security threats posed by nations like Iran and militant terrorist networks... 29%
• They are all equally important... 30%.

These answers reflect responses from 1,503 Tory members.  More results from the survey will be published on the ToryDiary tomorrow.

Comments

[James Maskell]

Sounds about right. When it comes to immediate threats against Britain, global warming doesnt really come into it. Does anyone recall the global warming episode of South Park? Pandemonium over a dam collapsing, with everyone automatically thinking its global warming when it was nothing like that. Very funny episode I thought...

I would have guessed given media attention that economic competitiveness would have come second, but the results sound about right.

[HF]

We need to be talking about issues that concern the people who dont vote Conservative.

The environment is one of those issues.

For far too long the Conservative party has just talked to its dwindling band of Members and we can all see the results of that in GEs.

[Jock Coats]

Was this a trick question?

There doesn't appear to be a correct answer amongst the options - where is "they are all symptoms of the same problem"?

[Gareth]

Hear, hear, HF! For the first time in 9 years we have a tory leader who is talking about issues other than those with which tory members are obsessed. Which, of course, is why we're beginning to make some modest progress.

[Deputy Editor]

What problem would that be Jock? Oil? hmmm

[James Maskell]

"We need to be talking about issues that concern the people who dont vote Conservative"

What are the big three issues that appear in opinion polls which ask the key issues to the questioned? Does the environment appear?

[Ed R]

In fairness, Editor, I ought to say that I didn't vote for the global warming option, but I don't have any problem with the emphasis David Cameron has given to the subject as you conclude. I think it has been good for the party and the country that Cameron has given this issue more prominence than it has had for some time.

I believe he was right to put green issues (not entirely the same as global warming) at the forefront of our policy agenda, especially entering local elections. It's at a local level that a lot of good can be done relatively simply, and it played to the strengths of good, efficient Tory councils with strong records on recycling. Most of us can do something about our local environment; few of us can do anything about global terrorism.

That's why I happen to think climate change is a big international challenge, rather than the biggest international challenge. But to infer that this Tory member, at least, is unconvinced by the emphasis on climate change is plain wrong.

[Edward]

Sorry, James, but more people (37%) thought the environment was at least equally important as any other issue than thought terror was more important or thought economic competition was more important. That sounds like cutting it to me.

[John Hustings]

Actually, going by this, it appears that Tory members are *more* interested in global warming than the public at large.

[Old Hack]

It's irrelevant what Tory members think about climate change -it's what these mythical swing voters think about it.

[PassingThru]

The trouble is not that Global warming isnt important, it is. However, national governments proposing national policies to tackle an International issue is pointless. Cameron et al shudnt spend their time devoted to environmental issues extolling the virtues of urinating in gardens, or overfilling kettles, but rather on gathering International Co-operation. Be firm with Bush and the Americans for once, and make it visible so americans see it. Unlike the BBC, which now seems to cover nothing but climate change, american news covers nothing on the issue. Its not an issue in America, Cameron should do all in his power to make it one if he's serious about this.
I dont know, maybe he should tie it in with the other main issue of global resonance - trade. Make it a policy that we will only trade with nations that are making the same efforts we are, otherwise we're effectivily subsidising their emmissions. Not a very conservative action, nor one id agree with, but the only way we'll have any clout given the lack of an international consensus.

[William Norton]

Edward: Sorry, James, but more people (37%) thought the environment was at least equally important as any other issue than thought terror was more important or thought economic competition was more important.

Well, actually 37% thought that global warming was at least as important as competitiveness and terror;
64% thought that competitiveness was at least as important as global warming and terror; and
59% thought that terror was at least as important as competitiveness and global warming.

However you juggle these results, global warming still comes third out of three - but I'm actually surprised it scores as high as it does, however you cut the figures. It's probably a reflection of the general background of CH visitors as compared to the general population.

I don't think these numbers by themselves (the Editor probably has a few more goodies to tell us later) can really be taken as either proof or condemnation of DC's decision to devote attention to the subject - assuming he also devotes time and attention to terror and competitiveness (which he is).

[James Maskell]

Edward, going by your thinking, lets think about it another way. 64% think that economic competition is as important or more important than the other two options while 59% think that terror threats are as important or more important than economic competitiveness or the environment. You cant apply your thinking to the environment exclusively. The environment still trails behind terror threats by 22% and economic competitiveness by 27%.

I recognise Ed Rs point about this being an absolute-style choice and doesnt reflect everyones evaluation in a more balanced way, but thats the way these polls work. It would take much longer to go through over a thousand responses if we were to say, give our responses in a percentage manner for each of the three options.

[James Maskell]

Damn, William beat me to it!

[Richard]

"What are the big three issues that appear in opinion polls which ask the key issues to the questioned? Does the environment appear?"

Nope. At least not back in February. It's down at number 9!

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/mpm060220.shtml

[James Maskell]

Cheers for the link Richard.

[Ian Sider]

"The answers suggest that Tory members would prefer David Cameron to spend at least as much time addressing security and economic issues as he has invested in environmental concerns"

They don't suggest any such thing. The question wasn't about David Cameron. And in anycase the wording of the question biases responses towards the more proximate considerations of economic competition and military threat.

If you'd asked "which of these three poses the greatest long term threat to the planet" you might have got a difference response.

Or to be neutral, you could have asked "which of these three should David Cameron be talking about most at the moment".

[christina speight]

HF writes

"We need to be talking about issues that concern the people who dont vote Conservative"

We really ought to be telling everyone including the above lot that Global warming as a man-made event is a myth and that in fact surface temperatures are almost exactly the same as 100 years ago.

To lie to them to get them on our side is immoral.

[James Maskell]

Asking questions whwihcever way you put its going to lead to different results. For example the 7/7 report having come out yesterday if it gets enough public attention might mean that terror threats becomes the issue de jour. If say we have a tsunami, environmental issues will come to the fore, regardless of whether mankind is to blame or not (thinking will be we live on this earth. A tsunami could be linked to global warming...I know, its actually an underground earthquake we have nothing to do with).

The poll results abofve show that terror threats and economic competitiveness are the two more important issues. Wierdly enough, or maybe not, they are the ones on the right of the Party...

[Jock Coats]

What problem would that be Jock? Oil? hmmm

Nooo! It's man made, abstract, more ethereal than oil. Oil, and the battloes to secure it are also symptoms of this...

[Editor]

HF and Old Hack: You cannot neglect the importance of mobilising your base. They are the people who knock on doors and fundraise. Winning elections is about attracting new voters and keeping familar ones.

Both of your suggested alternative questions are loaded, Ian Sider. One, mentioning the planet, will help boost the environment's rating and the other mentioning David Cameron will encourage the loyalty vote rather than what is people's greatest concern. My guess is that the environment would still be in third place, however.

***

On the whole I think the voting by Conservative members shows their wisdom. The bread and butter issues of jobs and homeland security will matter more at the next election than the faraway subject of global warming. We cannot afford to allow Gordon Brown an advantage on jobs and security.

It is also true that British governments can do more about economic competition and homeland security than they can about global warming etc. Even if Britain stopped all carbon emmissions we'd be overwhelmed by what emerging economies emitted.

It's not so much a case of avoiding any possible climate change but adapting to it... if, of course, it happens at all before we're nuked by Iran.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Aren't the first two linked? Surely greater efficiency in transport, industry and town planning translate into greater competitive abilities?

[Ted]

Editor

When I reached this question I considered voting for Climate Change because I was concerned putting something else above it would be taken as a critisism of Cameron's Green agenda.

Sorry but I think DC is right to use the Green policies as a major defining issue in our changed agenda. Not just because it is core to conservatism - care of our environment and good husbandry of resources - but because our interpretation of Green is different from the Libdims or the Green Party. Cameron includes quality of life, he includes clean / crime free neighbourhoods, he looks to the personal actions rather than just state taxation & regulation.

AND your excuse for inaction - those Chinese & Indians won't do it so why bother is the same excuse we hear daily from ill behaved teenagers and others to defend their anti-social practices "why should I have to when so-and-so doesn't".

Because we are Conservatives we don't need to bang on about tax, security & competitiveness - we already are stigmatised by years of doing that and most voters expect that if they elect us we will not be a tax & spend, lawbreakers friend and pro-Europe party. We need to have policies which reflect our beliefs in these areas, and when the opportunity arises we should use these to show there is an alternative which is better, more competent and more rooted in the values of this country. But we also need to show that we are a party that is concerned about quality of life and that the EU and Tax are not our defining characteritics.

[kingbongo]

well at least 'leaving the EPP' group didn't get voted the biggest international challenge.

Everyone knows economic competitiveness and security are the main challenges. Both of these tie directly in to environmental policy. I think DC is moving the party into a position where we can talk to the public about how to compete effectively and how to protect ourselves without being seen as 'same old tories all they want to talk about is economics and the army'.

I also am a panel member who fully agrees with Ed R's comments above. I think you have drawn a false conclusion from the data; If you wanted validly to draw the conclusion you have you should have asked a different question.

[kipper]

The difficulty here is that the subject is arcane and the conclusions subject to all the usual human foibles. For those of adequate scientific / mathematical training look here for the obstacles put in the way of field experts attempting to discern the truth:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

[malcolm]

Your an expert are you Christina.Do you think so many eminent scientists have pronounced on the potentially disastrous effect of global warming because thew have bought into some left wing conspiracy?
Personally I am more inclined with to side the scientists rather than someone like George Bush who is in hock to his oil company backers.
Why do you say the enviromental issue is 'faraway' Tim? Surely it is part of the duty of someone who wishes to be PM to be honest with the British people about the potential threats we face.Not everything is about telling people what they want to hear just to get votes.

[William]

If governments try to solve environmental problems by tax policy, energy policy or other intervention, they slow the economy.

If they get the economy right by keeping their spending and interest rates down, there will be plenty of private organisations that will invest and bring on new technologies that solve environmantal problems.

The more a government believes it must be a major environmental player, the less likely that private business will go near it, other than to scoop up grants etc and slush money paying for something that looks good like giant windmills, that solve nothing.

[Marissa]

...there will be plenty of private organisations that will invest and bring on new technologies that solve environmantal problems.

A company has very few direct commercial reasons to reduce the harm it does to the environment. Its interest in new technologies is simply to safeguard supplies, improve efficiency or save on raw materials. From a profit motive, any reduction in environmental damage is a happy by-product.

The environment is an asset in common ownership. Damaging that asset through pollution has a financial value for which we should each (including businesses) be responsible. The fact that we have been escaping this responsibility until now is not a reason for that absence of responsibility to continue.

[Ted]

Editor
Sorry if I went a bit personal in earlier posting but I do believe that DC is right to broaden the dialogue between party and voter.

I do not believe that the policies so far presented - or maybe the kites flown - are necessarily the correct solutions but climate change is a potential huge threat this century and should form a place within our priorities - we should be looking at how we can become both more economically competitive and more responsible in energy use (the latter might even help the former). We should be looking at how we can be less dependent on Russia or the Middle East for energy and again a greener energy policy would help.

The problem is that global warming cannot be proved - it can only be modelled. We might only be returning to a warm period after the cold period that finished in 19th century but the mass (not all) of climatologists and other scientists seem to believe otherwise. I'm not 100% convinced but cannot see the downside if in 30-50 years we have managed to bring convergence between continued economic prosperity and reduced our waste of resources & lessened considerably our dependence on finite fossil fuels.

I do think that the extremist measures - the sack cloth and ashes approach that many Green activists look to - and the statist management solutions would be harmful and expect our policy to turn its face against those.

[Editor]

I enjoy your posts Ted and did not find your earlier post personal. I don't have anything to add to my 19:06 comment, however.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

What the party needs to do in my view is ensure it doesnt neglect issues that will undoubtedly be of concern at the next election (and indeed now) such as law and order, crime and many others while it talks about the environment.

I think I must have said it hundreds of times now. People who believe recycling and the like is the right thing to do can also care passionately about the increase in anti social behaviour.

As a party we need to ensure we arent just seen as looking at one issue. The environment is important - but will it be the key issue in a General Election? Im not convinced.

[Graeme Archer]

Editor, I did predict that you would do exactly as you have done. Isn't this called an Aunt Sally? Why on earth should we think our party would talk about issue 1 OR issue 2 OR issue 3 OR issue 4? (Rather than Issue 1 AND Issue 2 etc). You know perfectly well why Cameron is talking so much about voting blue, going green - (1) sorry, but yes it does actually matter in and of itself, whatever the latest Sun Says editorial might think, but more short-term and tactically (2) it differentiates us from people's image of what we were, and from the opposition. Everyone agrees we had to change, yeh? He's using this issue to show everyone we've changed. We're not nasty metallic blue, we're conservationist green.

Cameron's talked about other issues this week anyway, extremely effectively.

This month's survey reminds me of a job interview I went to in the 80s. At the time it was common to assess candidates by means of personality questionnaires. I was applying for a job as an actuary with an Edinburgh firm, and one of the questions I was presented with was - I'm not making this up:

From the following four statements, pick the two which are MOST and LEAST like you:

(1) I enjoy going to see new films
(2) I enjoy a quiet night in reading a book
(3) I enjoy socialising with friends
(4) I enjoy analysing large complicated tables of numerical data.

They did offer me the job but I couldn't bear the thought of the office parties.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Tell me you dont enjoy analysing large complicated tables of numerical data!! Please say it isnt so.

[Rob G]

Editor: The answers suggest that Tory members would prefer David Cameron to spend at least as much time addressing security and economic issues as he has invested in environmental concerns.
Certainly not true so far as this member is concerned. I voted for "economic competition" because, of the three, it is the greatest challenge today. But, in the longer term, climate change is a much bigger issue and DC is entirely right to put it high on our agenda.

[Graeme Archer]

Jonathan -- I have to come out. My name is Graeme Archer, and I am a statistician.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Your an expert are you Christina.Do you think so many eminent scientists have pronounced on the potentially disastrous effect of global warming because thew have bought into some left wing conspiracy?
Personally I am more inclined with to side the scientists rather than someone like George Bush who is in hock to his oil company backers.
Why do you say the enviromental issue is 'faraway' Tim? Surely it is part of the duty of someone who wishes to be PM to be honest with the British people about the potential threats we face.Not everything is about telling people what they want to hear just to get votes".

Posted by: malcolm | May 12, 2006 at 21:46

The question could be equally phrased: "Are you an expert, Malcolm?"
Do you believe that so many eminent scientists (some with families of their own) have pronounced that global warming is just a climate of fear bogeyman encompassed in false conclusions that, and in so stating, is nothing but a Right wing conspiracy. If so what has this Right wing conspiracy set out to do - destroy the world and to hell with anyone else, we are going to have a good time come what may? I don't think so. I believe they are serious scientists that are not specifically funded to discover global warming come what may. If you set up a quango the quango will give you reason why it should continue to receive funds to exist and is necessary.
Scientists are always changing their minds; today I read that coffee is good for you; yesterday it was bad. Once upon a time they would burn you at the stake if you said the world was round and was not the middle of the universe. What are politicians going to do with the money raised form carbon emmission tax? Have a guess.
You are not an expert on global warming, Malcolm, anymore than I am and until a proper debate and enquiry is held and both sides are given a fair hearing I shall give it little credence. The BBC can bang on about it ad nauseaum, but because I know that our PSB organisation receives a grant from the EU (albeit a small one in BBC terms terms) and can obtain loans from EU institutions if so desired, then I pay relatively little attention to the pro socialist EU BBC propaganda. I prefer to believe the judgment of the House of Lord on the insidious effect of spin on global warming. Mr Cameron's efforts leave me cold.
It will be the efforts of the likes of GWB and American technology that will solve any possible problem. It will not be solved (if it needs to be solved) by the Greens, Friends of the Earth, the BBC or wetting our nickers.

[matt wright]

Without in anyway casting doubt on the DC strategy I would only say that this survey reflects public ones as well. From what I've seen the environment does not appear very highly and falls far behind issues like health, education, pensions etc. That said it is fair to say that by talking about the environemnt we have changed the perception of our party,

Matt

[Richard]

The most recent MORI poll on issues of importance can be found here:

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/mpm060502.shtml

The environment has moved up to 7th place but is still significantly below other major issues.

[Edward]

"Edward, going by your thinking, lets think about it another way. 64% think that economic competition is as important or more important than the other two options while 59% think that terror threats are as important or more important than economic competitiveness or the environment. You cant apply your thinking to the environment exclusively. The environment still trails behind terror threats by 22% and economic competitiveness by 27%."

The fact is James, William, the compelling logic of what I say is right. 37% of those polled thought climate change was as important as any other issue. That in and of itself is a lot. Yes, you can use other figures to make that look less impressive. My point was just to show that you can spin these stats either which way - on their own, however, they do not show that people disagree with DC's strategy.

[Giffin Lorimer]

Climate change happens all the time. Ascribing its cause to our Western lifestyle may be a fiction but it's one which gets a lot of airtime and there are a lot of people out there who think it may be true.

Promising to address the issue is an altruistic gesture - if it's true it affects the whole world - and that plays well with a large part of the voting public, whether or not they believe (or understand) the statistical basis for the climate change argument.

Surfing the Climate Change wave gives us valuable publicity and positions us as caring, sharing, community-minded folks - that's a big shift from being caricatured as narrow-minded, self-centred xenophobes since the 1980's.

If you want proof that it's a good strategy, look at Labour's Chameleon attack adverts. They reflect the too-late recognition that environmental leadership had been seized by the Tories and was rapidly changing public opinion.

The fact that the advert didn't work demonstrates that we have taken the moral high ground (how often have we been able to use that term in the past 15 years?) on the environment. Having outflanked both Labour and LibDems on this issue, we need to keep up the campaign, not scale it down. There will be plenty of time to talk about competitiveness and terror later as we watch Labour's schemes unravel, but for now the priority should be increasing our voter appeal through environmental campaigning.

[Jack Stone]

For far too long the Conservative Party have had an image of only being interested in money. In a lot of the public`s mind we were the spivs party, only interested in how we can help those who support us make easy money.
David Cameron as changed that. He as successfully shown the public that the party`s priorites are quality of life issues not just money, money, money!We have to show that we will take the part of the citizen against big business and we will put our environment and our quality of life before the pursuit of greed!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I didn't like this question at all. All three issues are important and we should be looking to address all three of them instead of conducting some sort of beauty contest to ask which is the most important of the three.

[gerry]

The prime mover in climate change is plate tectonic activity. There is patently nothing that we - or any species - can do about that. For most of the last 500 million years (since land life has existed) it's been warmer than today. The planet will lurch between glaciations and tropcal condition as it always has done, until our star (the Sun) becomes a red giant before it dies (during the next 5 billion years). Meanwhile, politicians give us 5 year plans.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Interesting comments by Jack. What we as a party cannot afford to do is let environmental considerations just be the preserve of the well off. Its easy to have a social concious and pay extra for fair trade goods and energy saving bulbs if you are comfortably off. Not so easy if say you are a pensioner on a fixed income. They may be more concerned about getting mugged after collecting their pension from the post office (if they are still lucky enough to still have one after this current Government has presided over the biggest closure of post office in history - which I may add, are primarily private businesses) and not so interested in global warming.

Yes both are important - which is why we as a party should (and I think will) engage on all issues, but I don't want the environment to become an area where we are seen to preach from on high.

[Jon Gale]

I voted for economic competitiveness, but climate change is also important.

Talking about environmental isuues also makes the Tory party look more up-to-date, caring and interested in a broader range of issues. It is not THE big issue but talking about it has many positive effects.

Personally I subscribe the "technological answer" approach, but carbon taxes and so can spur inventiveness - and I'd like to see more on subsidies (yes, govt. subsidies!) to fuel-cell research etc.

For years the environment issue was left to the 'weaving-your-clothes-from-nettles' brigade, now the Right is getting involved there might be some actual progress.

[William]

Marissa, the profit motive does not conflict with environmental benefit in all instances. In fact it is creating many new technologies, which will be the saviour of the situation.

Fuel cells, hydrogen, solar cells and so on. Most technological breakthroughs are pioneered by individuals working either alone or in small teams. Political initiatives are often expensive, misplaced and wrongly informed.

[Chris D]

""Which of these three is the biggest international challenge facing Britain today?"
I am not surprised that conservativehome members were unconvinced by the emphasis placed on climate change by David Cameron over the last few months when asked this question.
Economic competition and terror threats have always been high on the agenda in British politics for as long as I can remember and will continue to be major issues in the future. We have always faced economic competition in recent years from developing countries in Asia and we have now got the global threat of Al Qaeda replacing the domestic terrorism of the IRA.
But I also think that the environment/climate change has become a much more relevant issue as it has begun to effect people's lives in Britain. As our reserves of oil/gas diminish our dependence on outside supplies has increased with the cost being felt by both the business and domestic consumers. That will become an increasing problem over the next 2/3years and it will effect our economic competence. We have to have a debate now about making choices like building Nuclear power stations (which would be a prime terrorist target?)
The south of England is facing a severe water shortage this year and major investment to combat the present leaky system is needed. (^water bills inevitable)
Come the next GE it won't just be jobs and an ^increased council tax burden which voters will be complaining about but fuel and water bills will be a major factor also on people's personal finances.
These issues will become much more interlinked and the 30% who voted them equally important are going to be proved correct. Good to see the conservative party leading the agenda rather than trying to rely on issues that only resonate with their core vote.

[matt wright]

Jack, agree with you. Although the public don't rate enviromental issues as highly as say health nevertheless it is one of a number of issues that show we care and that we are not just bean-counters.

Matt