What’s in a colour?

The Conservatives have ‘Red Toryism‘. The Liberal Democrats have their ‘Orange Bookers‘. The Labour party now also has ‘Blue’ and ‘Purple’ factions.

So, it seems colour adjectives are in. Which begs the question, what ever happened to green?

Will Zac Goldsmith be joining the party of Attlee and Bevan?

Zac Goldsmith, Tory MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, thinks the British people “have it within them to rise to the challenge” of tackling climate change. According to Goldsmith, a multi-millionnaire aristocrat, “they have done it before”. In The Constant Economy, he writes:

In 1939, a whole generation fought what seemed like an impossible battle – and won. After victory, in 1945, that generation joined with an unprecedented, government-led mission to build a pioneering welfare state, which lifted millions out of poverty and revolutionized the lives of ordinary people. The disaster of war spurred us on to create new priorities, and build a better country. Today, the impending ecological disaster gives us the chance to rise to that challenge again.

Somehow I don’t think the coalition government is quite ready to rise to the challenge. Doesn’t Zac Goldsmith find it a little awkward being a member of a government that is so intent on undermining the foundations of our welfare state? Or maybe the preface to The Constant Economy was simply a piece of pre-election “progressive” rhetoric designed to appeal to the liberal middle-class electorate of his constituency.

So, to answer the question posed by this blog-post – probably not.

The Road to Investment

The idea that central government can influence the behaviour of its citizens via taxation still holds sway in most democracies across the world.

When government becomes dependent on the revenues from a specific tax, however, an obvious conflict of interest emerges.

Vehicle excise duty and road fuel duties, for instance, raise in excess of £20 billion for the treasury each year – but where does the money go? Public opinion seems to regard such taxes as pure revenue-raising by Whitehall. People do not believe that the money goes towards investment in alternative transport infrastructure. In part, this is due to a failure of consecutive governments to communicate to the public how and where they have invested the revenues from road and vehicle duties. In the main, however, public perceptions have been spot on. The revenues raised from the above taxes have swelled the coffers of the treasury and have not been used to offset carbon emissions. Indeed, in spite of the relatively high duty levels in the UK, compared, for instance with the US, the investment in and development of alternatives to petrol and diesel fuel has been minimal.

Here is where the Labour party must now be radical. It must recognise that the old model of taxation has been limited in improving our transport infrastructure and environment.

People are sceptical of central government’s intentions and actions in relation to road and vehicle tax. Many commentators stress the arbitrary nature of such taxes. Road-users have a right to ask who sets the tax rate, why such a specific rate has been set and for how long it will remain at such a level?

In the forthcoming policy review, the Labour party must debate road and vehicle tax as part of a wider analysis of the relation between government and how it uses tax revenues.

We are fortunate in that we already have a model, some would say a blueprint, to build on. Back in 2000, London mayoral candidate, Ken Livingstone, campaigned for the introduction of a congestion charge in the centre of the capital. Three years later, the scheme was introduced and since then private car usage in central London has decreased significantly. “Red” Ken took the market-based idea of charging drivers according to their car-usage in specific zones and ran with it. It is widely agreed that the congestion charge has been a success. Other cities have followed Ken’s lead and Mayor Boris Johnson has been cautious, despite pressure from lobbyists, about changing the parameters of the scheme too much.

The elephant in the room, of course, is investment. In order for the congestion charge to work as smoothly as it did, City Hall realised the amount of investment that was required prior to implementing the scheme. Thousands of new buses, driver training sessions, route redesigns and extensions, and an increase of policing and security were introduced ahead of the charge to make the transition as smooth as possible. Contrast this with the Tory-Lib Dem government’s recent announcement that rail fares for commuters will rise alongside tax increases with minimal or no improvements in services for much of the country. Labour must be bold and offer an alternative to the government’s austerity measures.

In order to make a real and lasting impact on the way Britons travel and to reduce our emissions in line with the most cautious of independent recommendations, we need a sea-change in the way the government taxes and its attitude towards investment. The policy review should provide a forum in which these issues can be rigorously discussed.

This article first appeared on Labour Uncut.

A Green Election?

The UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, yesterday set a May 6th date for the General Election. Expect to see a lot more coverage of the respective party campaigns here at Greenopolis. For now, here are five election-themed links.

The Independent – on where the three main parties stand on the environment.

Guardian Environment Network – asks if we are set for the first UK Green Election.

Greenpeace UK – encourages the electorate to ask where candidates stand on climate change.

Telegraph – Geoffrey Lean on the climate consensus between Labour, Conservatives and LibDems.

New Media Age – on how the plethora of online election coverage will attract first-time voters to engage with the political process. We’ve heard all about the ‘grey’ vote in recent years so perhaps now the younger ‘green’ vote will receive some attention.