I fear that 2022 may be the year when a section of the Tory party turns decisively against Net Zero. It's a rallying cry that can speak both to the tax-cutting, libertarian wing of the party and to culture warriors looking for a new front against "experts", "elites" and "wokery".
Tory hostility to Net Zero has been constrained thus far by loyalty to Johnson, but that's fading. As the cost of living rises, the temptation will grow to blame "elitist" and "left-wing" environmental policies (not Brexit or NI rises) for driving up costs for "ordinary people".
There is already a "Net Zero Scrutiny Group" in Parliament, staffed by ERG veterans, while campaign groups on social media consistently cast Net Zero as an elite project that should be halted by a referendum.
As @PeterKGeoghegan has noted, there are striking similarities in personnel, rhetoric, campaign tactics & finance to the campaign that won the Tory Party for Brexit. And soaring energy bills, like the Eurozone crisis, provide a favourable backdrop. opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-…
Supporters of NetZero need to learn the lessons of past failures. Don't take democratic consent for granted: work to build & sustain it. Never assume that only "fruitcakes, loonies & closet racists" disagree. Above all: don't leave the problems populists will tap into unaddressed
And if you're a Tory MP who really *does* support NetZero, don't take the path of least resistance. Don't assume someone else will win the fight for you. There is a good conservative case for climate action. It needs making, if the Tory Party is not to follow the path of the GOP.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Can the UK survive the rise of "muscular Unionism"?
Excellent piece by @ciaranmartinoxf on the danger to the Union from a tone-deaf, "know-your-place" British nationalism, keen to reorder the Union "on the terms of an English majority in a unitary state". journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
"Muscular Unionism" is intolerant of anything that limits the power of the governing party in London. In that respect, it's part of the "executive power project": a way of thinking that rejects the democratic legitimacy of any counterweight to the majority party at Westminster.
This is especially problematic when the "Westminster Model" allows a single party to rack up huge majorities in Parliament, with only a handful of seats outside England. Westminster elections are increasingly contests between English parties for Eng votes
Big constitutional news: the cross-party Public Administration & Constitutional Affairs Committee has called for the controversial Elections Bill - which imposes Voter ID, allows ministers to direct the Electoral Commission & extends FPTP - to be suspended committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/…
On Compulsory Voter ID: "there is currently no evidence of widespread personation at UK elections". Voter ID "risks upsetting the balance of our electoral system & making it more difficult to vote". "The Govt should not proceed" until it has shown evidence to justify the change.
Allowing ministers to set the direction of the Electoral Commission "risks undermining public confidence" in the electoral system; yet there was "no formal or public consultation". The whole section, it concludes, should be "removed" from the bill, pending further consultation.
There's a good essay to be written on "The Thatcher Myth": the creation of a mythic version of Mrs T, devoid of nuance or historical context, that bears almost no relationship to reality. Myths have power, & this one has bent the Conservative Party in some very strange directions
Thatcher understood the power of mythmaking, & was skilled at the "theatre" of politics. (It's no coincidence that some of her most famous lines were written by a playwright, Ronnie Millar). But only towards the end did she inhale her own myth; and her fall followed swiftly after
As prime minister, Thatcher was always a more complex figure than either her critics or admirers liked to admit: a PM who raised taxes during a recession, embraced the European Single Market, built close relations with a Soviet leader & negotiated the return of Hong Kong to China
"Few voters in the west have ever seen their domestic politics go catastrophically, life-endangeringly wrong. The appetite for political risk is therefore only natural".
Good piece by Janan Ganesh, on what happens when we forget that democracy is fragile. ft.com/content/7d9dee…
Angela Merkel issued a similar warning in October: "In history there is a recurring pattern where people begin to deal recklessly with [political] structures when the generations that created those structures are no longer alive". thetimes.co.uk/article/europe…
Ivan Rogers is another who has sounded the alarm: "we are dealing with a political generation which has no serious experience of bad times and is frankly cavalier about precipitating events they cannot then control, but feel they might exploit". news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/ful…
You'd hope we might have learned by now that referendums on abstract principles, in which no one has to take responsibility for the consequences, and from which wildly different policies can all claim a mandate, are a really, really bad idea.
To deny a referendum is to be accused of elitism. But the problem isn't the public or its right to make decisions. It's about which democratic tools we use, to ensure politicians are judged on the laws & taxes they impose,not on abstract pledges divorced from the practice of govt
If the vote was lost, would any action on climate change be against "the will of the people"? If it won, would an MP who proposed a different way of doing it be a "saboteur"?How would we know whether it was a "full", "jobs first" or "red, white & blue" NetZero that had a mandate?