After an endless round of local community meetings, talking to people about the economy, antisocial behaviour and the future of local services, the event was an opportunity to raise the environment in the campaign.
Despite the hyperbole in the run-up to Copenhagen, when the media all but counted the minutes left to save the planet, and despite valiant efforts by some individuals and campaign groups, including many of our leadership contenders, the press paid more attention to the leaders’ wives than it did climate change. To be fair, the environment wasn’t top of the list of issues raised with me on the doorstep either, but it deserved much coverage than it actually got.
Franny Armstrong rightly described the election as the most important choice facing the country in a generation – and she meant the choice to save the planet. Because although Labour’s legacy on the environment will be a world-leading framework of legislation, international agreement and long-term targets, the heavy work actually needs to be done now. If we fail to make substantial reduction in emissions over the next five years (the possible lifetime of this coalition government) it will be almost impossible to meet our longer term goals and avoid dangerous climate change.
But it is not just about managing climate change. Equally important is the opportunity to use the shift to a low carbon economy to rebuild industry and sustain ourselves coming out of the recession. The coalition might win a few friends in the green movement with symbolic decisions like blocking Heathrow expansion or signing up to the 10:10 campaign, but there are no signs of any real innovation or of an appetite to do the heavy work necessary. At best the coalition will simply see through the innovations we started in government. At worst, it will be a bargaining tool that is lost in the backroom deals of the coalition. On energy policy, as they struggle to balance principles with the desire for power, the Liberal Democrats have already watered down their position on nuclear to such an extent that their position is more worthy of Vicky Pollard than any serious political party. Surely we need more than a ‘yeah but, no but’ approach if we’re to put in place the measures we need to tackle climate change in the face of difficult spending decisions?
But does all this matter? From my vantage point as a campaigner on the ground (and in the south east at that) one of our greatest failings of our campaign was the inability to connect our response to the recession with a clear concern about the future beyond the recovery. Certainly, we had much to offer in our manifesto but it did not cut through into public consciousness. On doorsteps and in public hustings events people nodded with shared concern about securing the recovery and the dangers of dogmatic cuts but we failed to make the aspirational case that brought together our own winning coalition in the early 1990s.
Climate change and our response to it are essential components of Labour’s future vision. It sums up both our ability to tackle one of the biggest issues facing the world with our desire to harness human ingenuity and innovation for a common good. In the months ahead as we consider the future direction of our party we also need to think about our contribution on this issue. From my own reflections during the election there are three big challenges:
1. We need to think about how we communicate about climate change and engage the public more. Despite our best efforts climate scepticism has taken root, not least on the new Conservative parliamentary benches. Unless we can communicate better and mainstream our arguments there is a potential toxic mix between public distrust of authority and a rightwing-inspired movement of denial. We ignore this case at our peril.
2. Tackling climate change has to be more about the effective state than the Big Society. The driving force of this new coalition is an assault on the state as we know it and a critique on government intervention. Tackling climate change and making the transition to a low carbon economy, however, requires government action and intervention perhaps more than any other issue at the present time. But we need to make that case effectively.
3. Think global, act local. Sometimes the old slogans are still the best. The international action required to shape global opinion requires a government committed to a proactive approach in Europe and fairness between developed and developing nations. But global ideas were not our problem. Our failure was that too often we became distant from local action and trapped in the prism of government. Moving forward we need to invest in our local roots and work better with other progressive groups and movements.