ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

David Cameron will reject Tim Yeo's ideas on personal carbon accounts

It's not just the general public that is becoming less concerned with green issues.  The Guardian's Jon Harris told Adam Boulton yesterday that even the chattering classes assembled at the Hay arts festival have stopped chattering about climate change.  Mr Harris was even paying tribute to budget airlines.  It's amazing how an economic turndown changes priorities.

Some aren't giving up, however.  The main news on this morning's Today programme was  a report by a committee of MPs - chaired by Tim Yeo - that individual carbon accounts should be introduced for every single UK citizen.

John Redwood is at his best this morning, pointing out the impossibility of one nation introducing accounts unilaterally and he also warns against the enormous complexity of the idea:

"The initial response to the idea has concentrated on the enormous amount of computing and form filling there would need to be to capture everyone’s travel, heating, lighting and other uses of energy. It would make the ID computer look modest, cheap and not so intrusive. Government inspectors would need to watch over everyone’s habits and try to find a way of recording just about everything we do."

Complexity would only get worse if governments, for equity reasons, chose to adjust people's carbon limits for their age (older people spend more on heating), location (rural people spend more on transport) and health (very disabled people spend more time at home).

Fortunately the Conservative Party is almost certain to reject Mr Yeo's ideas.  On all the big green issues - green taxation, nuclear power and airport expansion - the party's initial green fervour is fortunately giving way to a more traditional approach.

ConservativeHome placed an environment design in our pre-Cameron masthead of shields because we believe in the importance of protecting the environment but it should be a sensible, practical environmentalism of the kind practised by local Conservative councils: recycling, protection of natural habitats, planting of trees, action against litter, better home insulation, pedestrian-friendly transport policies in town centres.  We don't deny that global warming may be real but sign up to the Copenhagen Consensus' analysis that there are more urgent things that can be done to improve human welfare than spend billions on green policies.  Meeting again this month to take another look at global warming and other great issues, the CC has previously put action against malaria and support for free trade as better priorities for today's public policymakers.

Forget climate change, voters want more loose change

The economy has overtaken immigration as voters' top concern.

Tax has overtaken law and order.

Inflation has overtaken the environment.

The findings come from the new opinion tracker of 5,000 voters hosted by PoliticsHome.com and powered by YouGov.

Anthony Wells writes:

"As the economy heads for trouble, there has been a remarkable shift in the public priorities. Issues like the environment have moved down the agenda and people have started worrying about tax and inflation. Less regular trackers from other companies have shown immigration as the big issues for a couple of years now - so to see it knocked off the top spot indicates a major change in public opinion."

More here.  The Tory leadership has recognised the change of mood.  Talk of green taxes hasn't just been dumped; Conservatives are now campaigning against at least one of Labour's planned taxes.

Abraham Maslow predicted all of this in 1943.

Will Boris be green?

Leading green campaigner Jonathan Porritt was worried before Boris' victory:

"The prospect of Boris as Mayor of London is just so scary. The prospect of Boris taking over London’s Climate Change Action Plan is even scarier. He may have learnt not to reveal his full contrarian bigotry on climate change, but he really doesn’t get it, and would rapidly scale back or completely get rid off the ambitious targets in the Action Plan. And that would be a massive set back. I just hope all the environmental NGOs can rally the troops in London in a pro-Ken campaign, even if they can’t come out and explicitly endorse him."

The Independent on Sunday is worried today:

"Although his father, Stanley (who would like to replace him as MP for Henley), was a pioneer of environmentalism, Boris has been until recently a climate-change sceptic. Seven years ago, he called George Bush's rejection of the Kyoto protocol "right not just for America but for the world".  After Mr Cameron went green, Boris said he was "terrified to dissent from the growing world creed of global warming", but that his mind was still "bubbling with blasphemous thoughts". So when he said in his manifesto for London that "City Hall should... strongly support efforts to tackle climate change", we are entitled to doubt the sincerity of his conversion. Especially as one of his pledges is to ditch Mr Livingstone's planned £25 congestion charge on larger vehicles."

Boris Johnson will be a 'green mayor'.  He presented an environmental manifesto that opposed expansion of Heathrow, promised 10,000 more trees on London's streets, opposed garden grabbing, promised more recycling and home insulation and supported a ban on carrier bags.  But this is a sensible environmentalism.  Boris Johnson does not have Ken Livingstone's green zeal.  The zeal that made London's outgoing mayor declare that this would be "the first election in British history to be decided largely on environmental issues".

Unthinking environmentalism costs taxpayers, costs jobs and costs lives

Great work by Tory Treasury spokesman Justine Greening has exposed the uselessness of Alistair Darling's 'green tax hike' on cars.  Her work has produced the main story in this morning's Telegraph:

"The "green levy" on motorists announced in Alistair Darling's first Budget will double car tax revenue to £4 billion but reduce vehicle emissions by less than one per cent, Treasury figures have showed... Justine Greening, a shadow Treasury minister who obtained the figures, said last night: "This is a massive tax hike which will have virtually no impact on the environment. Despite their claims, the Government don't expect this move to change behaviour at all - it is just another eco-stealth tax of the worst kind.""

The TaxPayer's Alliance's Matt Sinclair has already shown that we pay more than enough taxes to pay for our carbon footprint.  We need to be on high alert for more and more 'green action' that ends up costing taxpayers, costing jobs and - worst of all - costing lives.

Environmentalists have a history of putting their views before the interests of people in the developing world.  Attempts to ban DDT, for example, have only caused malaria infection problems to worsen.  Only this week the founder of Greenpeace explained why he left the organisation because of its anti-science biases.

The biggest side-effect of today's environmentalism has been the impact on food prices (again see Matt Sinclair).  Although far from the whole explanation for food price hikes Mary Riddell in The Telegraph notes how the current craze for biofuels is raising serious ethical questions:

"Filling a 4x4 fuel tank with ethanol uses enough maize to feed a human for a year. The EU quotas are a death sentence, and Brown should say so."

This week's Economist notes how higher food prices are hurting the world's poorest people:

"Famine traditionally means mass starvation. The measures of today's crisis are misery and malnutrition. The middle classes in poor countries are giving up health care and cutting out meat so they can eat three meals a day. The middling poor, those on $2 a day, are pulling children from school and cutting back on vegetables so they can still afford rice. Those on $1 a day are cutting back on meat, vegetables and one or two meals, so they can afford one bowl. The desperate—those on 50 cents a day—face disaster."

For those interested in these issues we recommend Nigel Lawson's new book - An Appeal to Reason - and also Iain Murray's new blog; The Really Inconvenient blog.  His new book exposes how liberal enthusiasms have hurt the environment and the poor.

David Cameron congratulates Australian Prime Minister on signing Kyoto

David Cameron met with Labor PM Kevin Rudd in London this morning:

"Prime Minister Rudd and I had an excellent meeting this morning during his visit to London. Our talk focused on Britain’s and Australia’s shared commitments in Afghanistan, and the latest developments following the NATO Summit in Bucharest, which Mr Rudd attended.

We also discussed the global economic situation, the prospects for the Doha round, and the Australian Government’s commitment to tackling climate change. I congratulated the Prime Minister on his Government’s decision to sign the Kyoto Treaty immediately upon taking office."

Rudd also met with Brown yesterday, and said that he would not let the Chinese have their own guards surrounding the Olympics torch when it comes to Australia.

David Cameron is increasingly seen by global power-brokers as somebody worth getting to know, and not just those on the right. Under Rudd Australia has joined Spain as the second prominent nation to withdraw from Iraq, his party is dominated by trade unionists, he hasn't been shy about his republicanism during this visit, and his signing of Kyoto was something that his Conservative predecessor John Howard had strongly held out against.

With there being a good chance Cameron will be Prime Minister in 2010 it's worth thinking about who the major world leaders he has to deal with will be. Rudd will very likely still be in power. Stephen Harper is looking solid in Canada despite still being in minority government. Obama or McCain in the US. Sarkozy in France...

Tory MP Ian Taylor attacks Greenpeace's "hypocrisy" in opposing nuclear energy

Tory MP Ian Taylor, Chairman of the Conservative Party's Science and Technology taskforce, has issued a statement today urging Britain to embrace nuclear power:

"Unless the Government moves quickly to boost the nuclear power station rebuilding programme, there is no hope in meeting the non-fossil fuel targets. Wind and wave power alone will not suffice.  Greenpeace shows sheer hypocrisy in pressing its objections. Members should resign in protest if they are seriously 'green'."

In the video below Mr Taylor describes the belief that a little more wind and wave power will deliver energy security as "emotionally confused".  Only nuclear power, he says, will help Britain to substantially reduce its dependence on oil from the Middle East and gas from Russia.

The initial Cameron position on nuclear power was to regard it as a "last resort" but that language is no longer being used.  The Tories now believe that as long as there is a fair and equitable financial regime, nuclear power should be an important part of Britain's future energy mix.  The Liberal Democrats remain firmly opposed to any more nuclear power plants.  12% of Tory members agreed with the LibDems' opposition to nuclear power.  85% disagreed with it.

Early last month David Cameron gave a speech to Greenpeace, promising a decentralised energy revolution where people are paid for the energy they produce.

Related link: Of kettles and car engines - why nuclear power is not the solution to energy security by Peter Franklin

Peter Ainsworth publishes the environmental heroes and zeroes of 2007

Following last year's heroes and zeroes, Peter Ainsworth has made a new list for 2007.  We publish them below with - in green italics - a few of our own observations.

Zac Goldsmith attacks Government for pandering to the whims of the aviation industry

Writing in today's Evening Standard, Richmond Park candidate Zac Goldsmith criticises the "misguided" principle behind the proposed new runway at Heathrow:

• "Why is the Government pushing ahead with a policy that is deeply unpopular with a large section of the capital and which conflicts with its own climate-change commitments? The answer must be that it has simply failed to do the calculations; that, or it has been bullied by vested interests."
• "The Government's ostensible fear is that if we don't expand Heathrow, we will jeopardise the competitiveness of our aviation industry. But Heathrow is already the world's busiest international airport, serving 17 per cent more passengers than its closest rival, Paris' Charles de Gaulle, and 45% more than Amsterdam's Schipol."
• "The truth is Heathrow does not need to expand. It would do far better to focus on improving its existing capacity. For instance, does it need to encourage so many transfer flights? One in three people using Heathrow never even leave the airport and therefore add very little value to the UK economy."
• "The principle underlying airport expansion - that we should predict growth and then simply provide enough  capacity to meet it - has been discredited for road building, and ultimately it will not survive for aviation. It is the politics of the magic porridge pot; a policy with no clear end, a non-solution."

Thoughts on next steps for modernisation...

Later this afternoon I'll post on 'next steps for the core vote issues' but here are a few thoughts on what, not particularly accurately, could be described as 'moderniser or change issues'.

Although I'm very glad to see the party 'rebalancing' it is important that the party does not retreat into the core vote territory that was insufficient at recent General Elections.  I have no doubt that David Cameron will remain committed to his change agenda but it's important that the change agenda is also fully consistent with conservative principles...

Continuing to emphasise the public services. Our polices on schools and hospitals are a bit timid but they're much superior to the command and control policies of Gordon Brown.

The environment.  Earlier this month I promoted the idea of 'achievable environmentalism'.  I mentioned planting trees, recycling, cutting waste, investing in renewables, protecting natural habitats.  John Redwood has written today about "practical environmentalism" and highlighted more fuel efficient vehicles, better energy conservation and more intelligent traffic management.  Conservatives should be a party of conservation but not a party of higher green taxes or heavy restrictions on development (eg airport expansion).

Social justice.  At Tuesday's Carlton Club dinner David Cameron noted that there were 600,000 more people living in extreme poverty.  The very poorest have got poorer under Labour.  Britain needs a Conservative approach to poverty.  Stronger families.  A freer, more dynamic voluntary sector.  Zero tolerance of crime and drugs.  School choice.  I have no doubt that the leadership is 100% committed to these core themes of a 'progressive conservatism'.

International development.  It was overshadowed by the fuss over the Rwanda trip, but Peter Lilley produced an excellent report on fighting global poverty.  I hope Andrew Mitchell, Alan Duncan and George Osborne will be able to embrace many of Peter's recommendations this week.  I'd also like the party to take more action against the trade of arms to despotic regimes.  I also wish we'd spoken out against the cancellation of the BAe-Saudi bribery investigation.

Respect for gay people.  Many people oppose David Cameron's belief that gay couples should be recognised in a similar way to married couples.  I don't.  I support the freedom of religious adoption agencies to be able to refuse to place children with gay couples but it's right that a modern Conservative Party is a defender of the rights of adult gay people.

Candidate diversity.  I never supported the A-list but there are many advantages in having more diverse candidates.  More people with roots in the north and in the public and voluntary sectors, for example.  Candidate diversity shouldn't just be about more women and more ethnic minorities.  We should be actively recruiting candidates with real knowledge of poverty-fighting and environmental protection.

Changes of tone.  Another change for the party to maintain is the change of tone.  Sometimes our party's rhetoric has been too harsh.  In the last campaign our posters accusing Tony Blair of being a liar reflected more on us than on him.  Our campaigning can still be negative but it shouldn't be personal.

Zac Goldsmith offers rebuttal of criticisms of his QofL report

Zac Goldsmith has just emailed me a Q&A that attempts to rebut the "amazingly misleading" press coverage of recent days. He writes: "The report is not about bans, punishments or telling people what to do. It's about making green decisions possible for everyone - not just the wealthy. It's about pushing business to be less wasteful and more efficient."

This is his Q&A briefing:

"More Bans?

The report actually puts very little emphasis on Bans. We propose banning landfill of waste that can be composted or recycled. But that’s about it. The emphasis is on raising standards as far as possible, but never more than existing technology allows. There are huge savings to be made through greater appliance efficiency.

Reports that we want to ban Plasma screens are wrong. We want to encourage plasmas that are less wasteful. Nor are we proposing to ban the standby. We want to have an automatic switch-off mechanism fitted so that appliances switch off after a set period of time.

More Regulations?

We don’t want more regulation. We have some of the most difficult regulations in Europe, and some of the lowest standards. We want to replace prescriptive – process-oriented regulations – with outcome-specific standards. So - we would abolish the Building Regulations. In farming – the most regulated of all activities – we would move to a process of self-certification based on trust. On Planning, we would decentralise the process to avoid situations where the Central Government is able to rule on genuinely local issues, against the wishes of local people and Local Authorities.

All so predictable

The Gummer-Goldsmith report has, as ConservativeHome feared, done the party a lot of damage.  It risks making us look like a high-tax party out of touch with ordinary families.  And for what benefit?  Nothing Britain does on its own will make a difference to climate change.  As the Copenhagen Consensus powerfully argues: there are many more sensible priorities for forward-thinking nations.

This is what George Pascoe-Watson, the Political Editor of The Sun, writes about yesterday's 'Blueprint for a Green Economy':

"The Tories are meant to be targeting Britain’s hard-working families with tax CUTS, not tax RISES.  But Goldsmith’s wish list of green policies would make life hell for most Sun readers."

The Sun Says column warns Mr Cameron that he is like an endangered polar bear; walking on thin ice.  He could "disappear without trace" at the next General election and asks:

"Why should we wear hair shirts when China builds two new coal-fired power stations a week and Russian rivers are so polluted they catch fire?"

The best line comes from the Express' leader column (not online): "Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer make Marie Antoinette appear positively in touch with common people."  It continues:

"Millions of hard-pressed British people know that a higher income would improve their lives.  Any party that claims the opposite, let alone one dominated by those born into wealth, is doomed to perpetual opposition."

The Mail does not repeat its 'Does Cameron understand ordinary people?' attack of yesterday but focuses on the Gummer-Goldsmith plans to make home improvement harder:

"Families would be forced to turn their houses green before being given permission to carry out loft conversions or conservatory extensions under plans published by the Tories yesterday.  Householders would have to follow in the footsteps of David Cameron by fitting energy-saving light bulbs, solar panels and possibly even a wind turbine on the roof if they wanted to make home improvements."

Hardly a vote winner.

The Telegraph is equally unimpressed.  This is what its leader-writers say:

"The report's authors have embraced the profoundly un-Conservative notion that people can be taxed into living their lives differently.  It is one thing to try to incentivise people to become "greener", quite another to try to bully them into submission through new taxes.  While we recognise that it would be the ambition of a Tory government, over the course of an economic cycle, to reduce taxation, the report recommends swingeing environmental taxes on new cars, higher vehicle excise duties and VAT on domestic flights.  Mr Cameron promised yesterday that all environmental tax revenues will be ring-fenced in a Family Fund that will be used "to reduce family taxes". It may be the fault of Labour that promises made by political leaders have come to be regarded as less than iron cast, but we doubt this assurance will reassure voters.  These aggressive tax proposals are unachievable in a literal sense, for any party espousing them would have little hope of winning power (a truth already grasped by Gordon Brown)."

The Independent welcomes the report, of course, and warns him that his credibility will be finished if he does not back its recommendations.  The Guardian is also positive but in remarks certain to alarm Conservatives it concludes that it is "far more radical on environmental policy than anything produced by Labour's high command".

Anyway, it's time to move on.  I don't always agree with Iain Dale's Telegraph columns.  They're very panglossian about the weaknesses of Conservative strategy but he's on the money today.  Brown doesn't just want to beat the Conservative Party.  He wants to destroy the Conservative Party.  That's more obvious today than it was yesterday.  The Thatcher-Brown meeting - strongly attacked by Rob Wilson MP in a controversial Platform piece - proved that conclusively.  ConservativeHome (belatedly) launches its 'wrongman' website on Monday.  It's not going to have much content on day one but - with your help - we can build it up into a creative centre for holding Brown accountable for his record and weaknesses.

Zac Goldsmith is off message about how green taxation will be used

Earlier today David Cameron gave a warm welcome to the Quality of Life policy group's recommendations:

"This report is probably the most thoughtful and comprehensive and fullest report that any party in Britain has produced on the environment.  I think it is a very good report and there is much of it that we will include in our manifesto."

In an attempt to increase the credibility of his promise that every £1 increase in green taxation will pay for a £1 reduction in family taxation he has also announced the creation of a ring-fenced 'Family Fund'.  All revenues from green taxation will go into the Fund and will be allocated to cuts in family tax.  Although ConservativeHome opposes higher green taxes, we warmly approve of Mr Cameron's choice of tax cutting priorities.  David Cameron said:

“We are prepared to make tough choices. We have said very clearly that taxes on pollution will go up. Those increases will be offset pound for pound by reductions in family taxes to help people meet the rising cost of living.  We will establish a family fund into which all of the new taxes on pollution will go. That money will be ring fenced – no civil servants will be able to get there hands on it – and  it will be independently audited so we can guarantee that increased taxes on pollution will be offset by a reduction on family taxes.”

This message was immediately undermined by Zac Goldsmith, however.  Justifying higher taxation of domestic flights he told BBC News 24 that the revenues raised would be used to improve rail services.  Although Mr Goldsmith does not speak for the frontbench he is a parliamentary candidate and it is unhelpful for the public to be receiving such mixed messages.

The TaxPayers' Alliance has produced a strongly-worded response to the Gummer-Goldsmith report:

• "The Quality of Life report is based on suspect analysis and its recommendations will be harmful.  Increased taxes, more regulation, more quangos, a curb of vital infrastructure development and an attack on free trade would hurt British families and businesses and damage our economic competitiveness.
• The report will not command public support.  A recent TaxPayers’ Alliance/YouGov poll showed strong public scepticism about the efficacy of green taxes and the motives of politicians in recommending them.
• Further green taxes are unnecessary and would be economically damaging.  A recent study by the TaxPayers’ Alliance showed that green taxes are already £10 billion higher than the level need to cover the cost of Britain’s carbon footprint - £400 for every household.  The report also showed that there are serious flaws in all the major green taxes."

Read the whole TPA response here.

Zac's perspective

Highlights from today's Telegraph article:

"The most credible science now tells us that human behaviour, through activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of the rainforests, is accelerating climate change at a rate that threatens devastating consequences for our security, prosperity and wellbeing."

"In a world whose population and hunger for resources is growing at an unprecedented rate, the depletion of natural capital and growing instability of our climate are factors bringing profound economic, social and security implications for every country. Britain imports oil and gas in an era of dwindling reserves concentrated in very few hands, not all of which we can rely on."

"As a country we have failed to get to grips with these vital issues. I think there are two principle reasons. First, the green agenda has concentrated on the wrong solutions - sticks, punishments, and doom-and-gloom messages that alienate people. Second, Gordon Brown has cynically exploited the growing concern about these issues to enrich the Treasury."

Easyjet slams Tory tax plans

EasyJet boss Andy Harrison said the following to Radio 4's Today programme this morning:

"Domestic air travel is already very highly taxed... EasyJet's average domestic fare is £27, of which £10 is already air passenger duty (APD), which represents a tax of well over 50%.

If you widen the debate out to the regions, to Northern Ireland, to Scotland, to the North East, rail is simply a slow, expensive, and often non-existent alternative...

The critical thing is to get people flying in new aircraft.  The Tories are talking about taxing gas-guzzling cars, but the way APD works at the moment is that people pay the same whether they are flying in an old aircraft, a new aircraft, a half-empty aircraft or a full aircraft.  We think the green agenda is important but we need to have intelligent, effective taxation not some of this tax which is quite simply the result of sloppy thinking."

He noted that easyJet was already paying £150 million in APD - four times its carbon cost according to Government statistics.

Noon: More below from Easyjet:

Too much materialism?

The above quotation from the Gummer-Goldsmith Quality of Life report (read it here) was shown to viewers of Newsnight.

I think it's true that material possessions don't bring happiness.  Sometimes the Conservative Party has been caricatured as too interested in money and insufficiently interested in the nation's culture, the strength of its families and the beauty of the countryside.  The best thing about the party's policy review process is that it has communicated breadth of political interest.   We haven't just had a focus on competitiveness and security.  We've also shown to be interested in social justice, international poverty, the public services and, today, the environment.  What I don't like in the tone of the Gummer-Goldsmith report is an apparent embrace of the belief at the heart of the green movement that growth, material acquisition and sometimes even humanity itself are enemies of the planet.

This seems a good time to use my favourite Edward Heath quote.  Mr Heath made the quote in the early 1970s - when the green movement first came to political prominence:

"The alternative to expansion is not, as some occasionally seem to suppose, an England of quiet market towns linked only by steam trains puffing slowly and peacefully through green meadows. The alternative is slums, dangerous roads, old factories, cramped schools, stunted lives.”

Let's have a debate about 'the good life' but Conservative politicians - particularly those frontbenchers with their 115 paid outside interests - shouldn't be lecturing low income families that there's too much materalism in Britain.

The Quality of Life report

Advance copy of the report: ConservativeHome has a copy of the Quality of Life report due to be launched tomorrow at 10.30am.  Interestingly it doesn't have an executive summary.  Reports without executive summaries nearly always - in my experience - don't want to be fully open about what they contain.

Download a PDF of the Gummer-Goldsmith report

Discouragement of home improvements: There are a number of taxes on cars and aeroplanes as expected.  So far I have discovered one very controversial new policy that hasn't been flagged yet: Page 72 recommends that any householder wanting to improve their homes via, for example, a loft conversion or adding a conservatory will be required to make "cost-effective energy efficient improvements to the existing structure".  This proposal could have major implications for homeowners' ability to afford home improvements.  While "cost-effective energy efficient improvements" may pay for themselves in the long-run the requirement for whole-house energy-efficient measures will discourage many people on tighter incomes from improving their homes.

Airport expansion: I have just been interviewed for Radio 4's World Tonight.  Before I spoke David Wilshire was interviewed.  His constituency includes Heathrow and he encouraged David Cameron to disown the report's recommendations on airport expansion and discouragement of domestic flights.  Mr Wilshire warned that restrictions on the expansion of UK airports will simply see airline business migrate to Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt.  He complained that Zac Goldsmith didn't understand the aviation industry and had not met him to discuss his concerns despite requests for him to do so:

"Zac doesn't understand aviation - it's a global business. British aviation produces 1.6% of global emissions. If we fiddle about on an entirely unilateral basis, we will damage the British economy, cost my constituents jobs and then we can watch the Chinese open up another 49 airports.  You can't fiddle about with aviation and make gestures, price people out of flying and make it an elitist activity for the wealthy."

MPs from the North West and East Midlands have also been in touch with me over recent days to talk about the importance of airports to regional economies.  My understanding is that David Cameron has rejected the report's blanket restrictions on airport expansion.

Achievable environmentalism: David Cameron should, in my opinion, not unilaterally attempt to save the planet.  Any marginal gains that can be achieved in Britain will be quickly overwhelmed by economic growth in India and China. Instead Conservatives should focus on 'achievable environmentalism'.  This should include planting trees, recycling, cutting waste, investing in renewables, protecting natural habitats and so on.

News reports already online: BBC | Times

David Cameron moves fast to kill charges-for-supermarket-parking row

Interviewed earlier by Telegraph readers, David Cameron has appeared to rule out charges for supermarket parking.  He said:

"I understand as a parent of three children that when you are going to the shops, you are trying to manage everything, car parking charges may not be the most helpful way forward."

This is the second time he has quickly disowned a Gummer-Goldsmith idea.  He has already said that he won't accept the moratorium on airport expansion.  Earlier today the balance of ConservativeHome opinion was strongly against the idea of having to pay to park your car at Tesco or Sainsbury.

Mr Cameron also "pledged that within weeks of Parliament's return on Oct 9 he would force a Commons vote demanding a referendum on the successor treaty to the abandoned European Constitution."

On the right is the picture the Telegraph has on its website of Mr Cameron answering readers' questions.  I'm not sure that the size of those energy-guzzling screens will impress Mr Gummer!  Al Gore wouldn't mind, though.

Gummer-Goldsmith ideas to protect smaller shops upset traditional Tory commentators

This morning's newspapers have a number of reports on 'Tory plans' to tax supermarket shopping.  The plans are, in fact, only proposals from the Gummer-Goldsmith Quality of Life policy group but they have produced upset at The Sun (see clipping on the right).

Richard Littlejohn, in the Daily Mail, also rails against the Conservative plans in his column:

"People are aware of their responsibilities to the planet, and most try to conserve energy and recycle as much as possible.  But they resent lectures about individual behaviour from Old Etonian politicians. An extra two grand on a Mondeo may not matter to a multi-millionaire like Goldsmith, but it's a huge chunk of change from the average family budget.  And whatever CMD [Call Me Dave] may think, regardless of what people tell pollsters, no one will vote for higher taxes and higher prices. They also resent being expected to pay more, on top of their council tax, for less frequent rubbish collections.  The Government already raises the thick end of £30 billion a year through "green" taxes - virtually none of which gets spent improving the environment."

Expect much, much more of the same if Gummer-Goldsmith recommends significant increases in taxation of air travel and cars later this week.  In order to offset the likely political damage the Tory leadership needs to move quickly.  It will be helpful if George Osborne immediately announces which tax cuts will be enacted by a Conservative government - afforded by the extra green taxation that David Cameron promised yesterday.

The Guardian notes that John Gummer's policy group believes that local authorities should have the power to levy fees on supermarket car parks that bring them into line with town centre rates of charging.  The revenues raised, suggests Mr Gummer, would fund improvements in public transport.  Mr Cameron has already ruled this out - saying that all new environment taxes will pay for cuts in family and business taxation.  The Guardian also says that  the group will recommend a confidential hotline through which farmers will be able to 'shop' supermarkets that treat them unfairly.  It quotes a recent poll showed that found that 71% of consumers worried that supermarkets were too powerful.

Zac Goldsmith has fought a campaign against the building of a new Sainsbury's supermarket in Barnes - the centre of the Richmond Park constituency which he hopes to represent after the next General Election.

Related link: The six political dangers of Gummer-Goldsmith

Cameron explains why he wants to measure 'General Well Being'

Another extract from David Cameron's LSE talk:

"Capitalism is clearly the greatest agent of human fulfilment that human ingenuity has ever contrived.  But capitalism on its own is not enough: an approach that ignores the rest of life is one that is badly misguided.  For me, well-being is simply the opposite of the social breakdown that we see all around us in countless daily manifestations… crime and anti-social behaviour, rudeness and incivility, litter on the streets and a transport system which makes it such a hassle to get around.
 
For me, well-being means a determination to improve the quality of life for everyone in our country.  Let me demonstrate my point with a quotation I am fond of from Robert Kennedy:

“Our gross national product... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.  It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them.  It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets.  It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.  Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Those words have a special relevance for Britain today.

Over the last ten years we have fallen in the league tables of quality of life.  For example, the UN’s Human Development Index, devised by Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq, found that quality of life in the UK has fallen from 10th in the world a decade ago to 18th in the world today.  That is a terrible finding."

Mr Cameron identified action on family life, the quality of the environment, inequality, health and trust networks in society as all essential to improve General Well-Being.  This week's Gummer-Goldsmith report is expected to recommend that some sort of Happy Planet Index is introduced the measure improvements and declines in the national quality of life.

Cameron: We will raise green taxes but they will be replacement taxes

Speaking at the LSE David Cameron has crushed any idea that the balance of green tax measures under a Conservative government will be cuts to encourage good environmental behaviour rather than tax rises to discourage 'brown behaviours':

"By using green taxes as extra stealth taxes, Gordon Brown has given them a bad name.  I’m determined that the Conservative approach will be different.  With my Government, any new green taxes will be replacement taxes, not new stealth taxes.
 
In a few days, our Quality of Life Policy Group will publish its report.  It will contain many recommendations on tackling climate change, at home and abroad, including recommendations on green taxes.  As with all the reports in our Policy Review, we will study its proposals carefully.
 
But let me be clear.  We will raise green taxes, and use the proceeds to reduce taxes elsewhere.  That is the right direction for the environment and it’s the right direction for our economy.  It is the best way to deliver the green growth that must be our aim."

Mr Cameron's remarks come within a longer speech on 'Meeting the economic challenges of the future'.  Download a PDF of the full Cameron text.

The six political dangers of Gummer-Goldsmith

Oliver Letwin's sixth policy group will report later this week and it's an interesting question as to what David Cameron's head of policy will do then?  It is Francis Maude, I understand, who has the job of converting all policy ideas into usable form.

The sixth policy group - on the environment and the broader quality of national life - is potentially the most controversial.  If, for example, it recommends large increases in green taxation it risks undermining the good work that has been done in recent weeks in restoring some faith in the Cameron project amongst traditionally Tory-supporting newspapers.  This morning's news about the report was nonetheless encouraging:

• There will be tax rewards for good green behaviour and not just penalties for environmentally-insensitive behaviour;
• The potentially very bureaucratic green miles proposal has been dropped;
• John Gummer has prevailed against Zac Goldsmith's strong opposition to nuclear power.

As David Cameron and George Osborne consider the remainder of the Gummer-Goldsmith proposals they need to be aware of six main dangers...

Green taxation is unpopular.  It's unpopular with voters at large.  It's unpopular with Tory members.  It's unpopular with the right-of-centre press.  Most people would rather see technology-led solutions to environmental problems.  They see green arguments as a convenient cover for politicians who want to find stealthy new ways of raising taxes.  A report from The TaxPayers' Alliance earlier this week found that existing levels of green taxation more than cover the environmental costs of our activities.  John Redwood recommends a mindset shift to tax relief for planet-friendly activities.  He's correct to do so.

Green action mustn't punish the poor. Green taxation - like the congestion charge and VAT on domestic flights - can fall most heavily on the poorest.  There is a real danger that environmentalism can look like a rich man's sport.  The Gummer-Goldsmith report will apparently attack "the hedonistic treadmill" and tendencies to treat the market as a god.  Few Conservatives are in favour of hedonism or unregulated capitalism but too much environmentalism resembles rich people telling the poor what they can and cannot do.  Rich people who enjoy foreign holidays want to tax the budget getaway-to-the-sun for low income families.  Already rich nations want to limit the industrial development of poor nations.  It is true that environmental problems hurt the poor most but it's important that the wealthiest voters and countries shoulder a full share of any environmental action.

The party leadership mustn't just talk green. Voters won't respect the Conservatives on the environment if we don't walk the walk.  If we're going to clamp down on domestic flights then the shadow cabinet must use trains.  If we're going to object to foreign holidays then frontbenchers need to spend recess in Devon, Cumbria and at other UK resorts.

Green action should not endanger Britain's competitiveness.  Much environmental action can be a good in itself.  Zac Goldsmith makes a very good case, for example, in today's Mail on Sunday for retailers taking more responsibility for the excessive packaging that comes with their products.  The dangers of energy insecurity should also encourage more renewable energy use and more energy conservation.  But some of the recommendations of the Gummer-Goldsmith report look economically dangerous.  Crude restrictions on airport expansion will only transfer business overseas.  Heathrow's loss will, for example, be Schiphol's gain.  We also need to be aware that most of the growth in emissions is coming from India and China.  British action should not amount to unilateral economic disarmament.

Climate change must not eclipse other concerns.  Team Cameron now realise that they talked too much about the environment in their first eighteen months.  Recently they have begun to achieve more of a balance in their communications.  They are now also focusing on issues that are more worrying for voters: the NHS, crime and the cost of living.  That needs to continue.

There should be a focus on 'achievable conservation' - not changing the world. The party's green messages have been most successful when they have been local.  The 2006 and 2007 'Vote Blue Go Green' campaigns successfully highlighted the excellent record of Conservative local councils.  There is only so much that Britain can do to combat global climate change but there's a lot more that a Conservative government can do locally and nationally.  I think of planting trees, recycling, cutting waste, investing in renewables, protecting natural habitats and so on.  We should focus on what voters know is doable.  I mention Zac's Mail on Sunday article again as a good example of sensible, achievable environmentalism.

If the party gets all this badly wrong in the next seven days we can expect talk of an autumn election to become frenetic again.

Quality of Life report dominates Sunday papers

Leaks of the contents of John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith's policy group report signal that the three most controversial issues have been settled amicably:

• The Sunday Times' headline story is that there will be significant rebates on stamp duty, VAT and council tax to reward environmental efficiencies. Putting emphasis on "incentivising the good" rather than "taxing the bad" is sensible in the light of the TPA's recent demolition of green taxes.
• Nicholas Watt in the Observer reports that Gummer has abandoned the highly unpopular "green air miles" proposals but does intend to target taxes at the aviation industry for using planes that are especially environmentally unfriendly.
• Watt reports that Gummer won the nuclear power battle as well, despite Goldsmith saying he would "fight like hell" against it. The report will endorse nuclear power but with the caveat that the nuclear industry will have to pass certain tests. A "senior Tory" sees this as evidence that the political realities of being a candidate have softened some of Goldsmith's radical positions.

The Sunday Mirror links "furious behind-the-scenes rows at Tory HQ" on these issues with Johan Eliasch leaving the party. Thankfully though, the finished product promises to stave off a lot of unwanted unrest.

The other headline proposals are on energy efficiency in the home. They will recommend that household electrical appliances should be regulated more so that the worst offenders don't enter the market and the others will carry labels at the point of sale so consumers can see how much energy it uses. Plasma screens and permanent stand-by functions would be banned.

The Independent on Sunday seems to be alone in revealing a side to the report that delves into social psychology. It quotes Jules Peck, Director of the report, saying that they have been "rethinking the whole way we look at the world". The report will talk about the "hedonistic treadmill where individuals can never be satisfied", and say that "treating [the market] as a god and doing its bidding does not make men and women happy". That excessive material consumption can be both bad for the environment and bad for people is undoubtedly true and looks to me to be the most interesting aspect of the forthcoming report.

Noon update: The Mail on Sunday reports that the cost of a family saloon car could rise by as much as £2000 under plans to tax high carbon cars.

Deputy Editor

Tory members are unpersuaded by arguments for green taxation

In the most recent ConservativeHome survey we asked which tax you would like to be cut first.  You chose inheritance tax but income tax wasn't far behind:

• Inheritance tax: 27%
• Income tax: 20%
• Council tax: 18%
• Tax on married couples: 15%
• Stamp duty on house purchase: 8%
• Corporate tax: 5%
• National insurance: 4%
• VAT: 2%
• Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes: Less than 1%

The most unpopular tax amongst the whole population - according to an ICM survey for the TaxPayers' Alliance last summer - is council tax (but inheritance tax wasn't far behind).

Cameron on Newsnight touches on immigration, green taxation and the outside interests of the frontbench

The Tory leader is on Newsnight at 10.30pm but News 24 have already broadcast the whole encounter between Mr Cameron and Gavin Esler, Michael Crick, Stephanie Flanders and Mark Urban. I missed the preview but here are three toplines from the interview:

• Under repeated questioning David Cameron says that immigration is too high in Britain;
• He says that Tories will raise taxes on air travel;
• He concedes that frontbenchers may be spending too much time on outside interests but that the team is overall hard-working.

6.15pm: The BBC website is headlining the interview as 'Immigration too high - Cameron'.

6.30pm: This is what Cameron says on immigration: "I think that there are benefits from immigration  and want Britain to capture the benefits from that immigration... But I think the levels of migration we see in the early part of the decade of this Government, when the asylum numbers were very high, and the later part of the decade, when immigration settlement numbers were very high; I think we have put too great a burden on public services and I think it needs to be better controlled... What's required in the whole debate about immigration is a careful use of language but actually some fairly tough and rigorous action... What we have had from the Government sometimes, particularly from (former Home Secretary) David Blunkett, was loose and inflammatory language but weak and ineffective action. I think we need the complete opposite."

11.15pm: I've deleted the third point above.  Contrary to what I was briefed I do not think David Cameron conceded anything on outside interests.   My overall view: A very strong, confident performance.  No sign of panic.  More commentary tomorrow on the detail of what DC said.

Gummer-Goldsmith to recommend freeze on airport expansion

The Daily Mail is reporting that the Conservative Party's Quality of Life group under the chairmanship of John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith will recommend:

• "A moratorium on all airport expansion, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted;
• The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;
• A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to airlines;
• Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead."

The Mail also suggests that the BAA London airports 'monopoly' will be broken up and 4x4 cars will face higher duties.

The second and potentially very bureaucratic tax on a person's second annual foreign flight has apparently been ditched.

Higher green taxation will be used by George Osborne to fund lower taxes on families and business.

12.30pm update: The story is actually a London Evening Standard exclusive (Standard stories appear on Mail Online).  A Standard leader welcomes the "progressive thinking" in the report but warns that it could undermine the already "shaky" support for the Tories in the business community.