Vegetarianism gains more ground.

Rumbold makes half of a fair point over at Pickled Politics. To whit:

Let us assume for the moment that green taxes are effective, in that they will lead to people being in a more environmentally-friendly manner. These taxes are thus desirable, so long as the overall tax burden does not rise. There is a simple enough way to convince people that green taxes are not just another means by which the government raises revenue; every pound raised by green taxes should be matched in cuts on income tax, by raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax. Moreover, the tax on oil should be reclassified, so that 25% of the tax counts as a green tax. This 25% would then be spent on the basic state pension.

He’s right; people will become suspicious of “green” taxes when they’re self-evidently being used as stealth taxes. Where I disagree is on what to do with the money.

Environmental taxes should change behaviour. However, they can’t do that simply by disincentivising this behaviour: they need to provide alternatives. Green life needs to become more attractive economically than whatever took place before. It’s possibly possible (oops…) to do this entirely through the tax system, simply making environmentally damaging behaviour so expensive as to be unviable.

But that’s hardly fair, as the alternative could remain expensive. Here, rising fuel costs make cars less and less attractive to drivers - but if public transport stays as stupidly expensive as it is, then people will stick with them. So the state needs to provide those alternatives, or face a cynical public on green taxes and inaction on green issues.

The answer is to use the money from green taxes for green purposes. The millions from fuel duty should subsidise public transport and so make it easier for people to abandon their cars. Public scepticism would fall as everyone felt the benefits. And, most importantly of all, the issues which the taxes existed for would be addressed - which isn’t certain with matching tax cuts elsewhere.

Rumbold rightly argues that green taxes will lose public support if they’re actually stealth taxes. But they won’t work if the state doesn’t move beyond intervention. People will grumble about the green tax, gratefully take the income tax cut - and move on. Environmental issues remain unchallenged. In the case of rising fuel duties, many might well use the money saved on income tax to pay for exactly the same amount of newly-expensive fuel as before. Nothing would change.

That’s why green government needs green spending just as much as it needs green taxes. It’s not just about making certain behaviour unattractive. It’s about making the alternatives attractive as well. People will have no reason to change beyond what they hear in the news, otherwise - and they’ve been hearing that for 30 years. The most logical way of making that change is to use the money from making the former behaviour unattractive to make the other behaviour attractive. Surely?

If there’s any money over once that change happens, then great - bring on the tax cuts. But until then, it’s tax and spend we need, not tax and balance.

Due to my near total disconnect with the news over the past few days, as well as in order to evade another leviathan comment, I shall address the issues raised by Douglas here in my first post proper for far too long.

It occurs to me that the part played by environmentalism in the Green policy book is often more minor than you would imagine. It occurred to me years ago that at times they were effectively socialists devoid of any connection to Marx beyond a focus upon the “Environment”, with even that being entirely other to his understanding of it. Ali, our resident critic of the party suggests that “but also that a heavy tinge of green is ladened on,often for no reason” but my suggestion would be that this is more a matter of form than anything else. They genuinely care about social justice but their purpose is environmentalism so all else seems rather off topic. In order to make it part of their remit they must perform some occasionally rather uncomfortable and somewhat tenuous stitches to their ideology but that is something that should cause you to pity their predicament rather than dismiss their suggestion. So long as the policy is sound that it’s presentation is through an inappropriate green filter is rather an irrelevance. When the Greens talk of matters rather unrelated to environmentalism I agree with them entirely, for instance with effectively ever suggestion that Douglas lists. Occasionally the two inter-lock to result in a truly glorious fusion of pragmatism and environmentalism that makes of a potentially highly confrontational ideology a firmer position for consensus politics than most parties could ever hope for.

Douglas’ comparison to the Liberal Democrats was illuminating here and it is worth bearing in mind that that party is a union brought about by the threat posed by two parties being upon the left that were not Labour rather than any great love amongst the Liberals and Social Democrats. So if it had been the environmentalists who had joined the SDP rather than the once great, longstanding Liberal Party I suspect that the outcome would have looked much like the Greens do today. They are concerned with social justice and various suitable things of that nature and have effectively become cuddly socialists.

Ali’s second criticism of them was a far finer point and one which related to the pragmatic practicalities of their political existence, rather than their guiding philosophy. I consider the latter to actually be more sound than that of many of the far more popular parties, including those which are represented in our parliament. As ever, though, such things are not decided by amateur political theoreticians but instead the public. Popularity is what matters here and we should consider the actual chances of them reaching power, or at least a position of greater influence, rather than merely whether their manifesto is suitably consistant and pretty.

So it is stated: “The principle of Greenism has been adopted by every reasonable party,” which is entirely true and a phenomenon severely underrated and underconsidered. This is not the place for that, though and I shall return to it later. For the time being let it be known that I could not agree more. Here, however, we reach a point of discord: “and the Green party should recognise its role as a pressure group is diminished by seeking electoral success. They sacrifice the cause for the sake of ego, which is a great shame.”

Now firstly let us deal with the notion that the Green success makes their involvement with the political decision as actual potential operatives rather than external influence imposers an idiocy and entirely egotistical. If all were as presented then I would go further to suggest that they are now superfluous and, for the moment, need not exist. This would be true if all of the other parties truly had embraced environmentalism but, as Ali puts it, “The principle of Greenism has been adopted”, while in many instances what is lacking is the policy. This leaves them, at least, with work to be done.

This could be done by serving as a pressure group but this risks them becoming one amongst the multitude. Many had attempted to raise and emphasise green issues but it must be remembered that the reason that they are the fore of British politics in the way they are can be linked back to the initial effort of the Greens to crack electoral success. In the 1980s they shocked all with their success at local elections, one similar to and often compared to the UKIP insurgency at the last European Parliament vote.

This was a high tide for the Greens but it also brought an issue almost entirely brushed aside by the mainstream parties to the fore and laid the path for the cross-party consensus {at least in rhetoric} upon matters environmental.

Very well, it would then be said, they were necessary historically then. They had their purpose and it was served and we would not be where we are without them. The public does not desire them to progress and as such they should cease to approach their activism as they have and act as do others. Besides from the obvious weakness of most other special interest groups operating without deep party ties {and the feebleness of even them when discussing the Liberal Democrats} there is another, more meaty point. The public may not be against the Greens, but instead the system.

Another piece by Hari seems worth referencing here and given that the Greens are receiving my consideration in the Mayoral election solely because of an alternative to the ghastly FPTP system being in place. So please give this a read and mull over the possibility of the Green Party being worth sustaining simply to keep ticking over until a proportional replacement is introduced. Under the current system their hopes of cracking parliament are based around the increasingly futile dream of taking Brighton, the sole location in the country where they have established themselves as 2nd place.

In other European nations though there have been established Red-Green Alliances but this snug fit largely depends upon a system other than the distorting filter of First-Past-The-Post being in place. Without it the results are obvious and immediate here: Livingstone and the Greens are already open allies. Some similar arrangement being made in parliament is easy to imagine.

Perhaps the chances of FPTP being altered are slim. It is doubtful that pressure for it from yet another party that would benefit immensely were it to be introduced will do much to ease this or increase its likelihood. But if it does get changed the notion of a Green Party being swiftly pulled together purely for the occasion seems rather preposterous.

Although the success of the single-issue rush staged two decades ago will not be repeated under the present system a party steadily building its local support and making all efforts it can to hammer out some form of policy between environmentalism and socialism in the interim between electoral reforms that will show their popularity for what it is rather than what the FPTP reveals and then build upon it seems not an entirely disagreeable sight.

Certainly more pleasing than another baying noise machine that acts entirely without democracy, internal or otherwise, and operates entirely in order to alter the minds of already elected officials rather than making efforts to convince the public as a whole. There need not be a choice between technocratic and populist Greenism but I certainly know which I prefer.

Yesterday, Ali intimated he felt Sian Berry, Green candidate for London Mayor, had no policies outside of environmental issues. Actually, his words were:

“Sian Berry’s Green gang have a sensible little set of policies, but they are decidedly narrow-minded. I want a mayor who wants to run London, not just its airspace and green fields.”

This isn’t entirely fair. A brief glance at her campaign website or her blog will demonstrate otherwise. While (as you’d expect of a Green Party candidate) there is a heavy green tinge to her manifesto, a large part of it is concerned with social justice and other policy areas. Thus:

“People who think social justice and poverty are not ‘Green issues’ are wrong. You can’t have one without the other - a Green London is a more affordable London.”

Often, her policies attempt to challenge social problems through green solutions - certainly novel, and expanding the manifesto beyond “airspace and green fields.” Take, for example, her stance on insulation. Berry would, “roll out a massive programme to give free insulation to every home in London.”

The logic behind this is twofold. 40% of carbon dioxide emissions come from energy lost from homes. First off, this is bad for the environment, and so Berry, as a Green, wishes to reduce the amount. By providing insulation for all homes, she would ensure that this happened.

At the same time, it is often poorer households which suffer from heavy heatloss. Unable to afford proper insulation, lower-income families tend to have to devote larger proportions of their incomes to heating their houses - either that, or they simply get cold. Berry thus also addresses a social justice issue, fuel poverty, with this policy as well.

Meanwhile, others of Berry’s policies have, as far as I can tell, no enviornmental content, but much in terms of social justice. From her list of plans for a, “greener, more affordable London”:

Increase the affordable housing requirement in the London Plan to 60%.

All public employers to pay a living wage of at least £7.20 and robust pressure to be put on private employers to match this.

Student discount on public transport extended to pay-as-you-go.

Demand the write-off of housing debt so London can get building social housing again.

Affordable business premises for local businesses in all new large retail developments.

I don’t detect a single environmental policy - what I presume Ali was referring to with “airspace and green fields” - in that section of the list. It’s all social justice related - often to the left of Labour.

If I had a vote in this election (which, despite being a politically aware Londoner, I don’t, being some two weeks too young…) she’d get my second preference, I suspect.

Actually, while we’re on the Green candidate, the same can probably be said of the party on the whole. Of course, they have a heavy environmental bias. They are a Green party, they believe green issues to be the most currently pressing, and were founded to combat them.

But in they are also a socially liberal, centre-left, democratic party with distinctly socialist leanings - and who, for me at least, form an increasingly preferable alternative to the Lib Dems as a left-wing alternative to Labour. A short list of some of their policies that usually don’t make the headlines includes:

• The decriminalisation, then legalisation, of drugs for recreational purposes.
• The “democratisation” of the banking system with the creation of a “network of publicly owned community banks.”
• The creation of a “Citizen’s Dividend”; that is, an unconditional, non means-tested, weekly payment made to every citizen whether they are working or not. This would replace benefits such as Job Seeker’s Allowance, as well as replacing personal tax-free allowances, and attempt to eliminate the “Poverty Trap.”
• Increased income tax and progressive corporation tax.
• Increased trade union rights and renationalisation of the railways
• Removal of the monarchy from the constitution, PR and an elected House of Lords.

See what I mean?

Sian Berry, and the Greens in general, are always going to care more about environmental issues than anything else when it comes to politics. It’s why the party was founded, it’s why (most of) its members join. But to claim that they’re concerned only with, “airspaces and green fields” - or whichever trite phrases a commentator might chose to dismiss them with - is both unfair and grossly ignorant.

Apparently the claims that the recession would damage the affiliation with the environmentally friendly were overblown, for Darling intends to splash the colour far and thick.

Interestingly though it looks like more than a mere paint-job {just a quick, fun little game to play amongst your friends: name five actual policies the Tories announced to deal with climate change, quick. What came to mind there? Dave and some huskies? Dave looking pious? Any actual content? At all? No, didn’t think so} and Darling is even sticking with the 2p fuel rise because “he thinks it would go against the grain of a budget that is trying to limit carbon emissions”. Rather curiously he seems to be one of those “Consistant” politicians I’ve long heard stories about but rarely actually encounter. Or rather, has become. Perhaps the Northern Rock dithering used up his deception quota for the year.

Regardless, this exposes them to the ghastly opportunistic strikes that the Tories staged last time they held their own over fuel price rises, so it is good to see them knowing that and still sticking to their guns. I wouldn’t count on Cameron keeping as consistant as Labour have and refraining from attack over an issue he tried to lay claim to, and I suspect that they also know this. Perhaps they just knew that they could count on the Clegg Dems absence.

To me this seems like further advancement of the ideology of environmentalism, the rise of which across this decade has been both astouding and entirely underrated and discussed. It seems that what is unquestionably amongst the youngest political philosophies has taken by stealth, or at least exerted an extreme influence over, the rhetoric of all three of our major parties. I suspect that the empirical evidence supporting its validity is the cause of this as only irrational big oil apologists like Mick Hume and outright, long-standing idiots such as Peter Hitchens currently deny the obvious. There is a lot more to be said about this and I will do so shortly.

 Unfortunately they are weakening the non-dom crack-down {Anatole Kaletsky has a whole page about it in the Times business section, just for that paper’s legion of wealthy foreign readers and those considering joining them} but on the upside aren’t scrapping the targets for child poverty annihilation, although I imagine that they’ll miss them. If they end up doing good than a puny “pragmatist” would have, though, then that doesen’t matter.

Rather shockingly the city aren’t so keen on somebody who will chase them when they run across national borders away from the Taxman and nationalised industry. What an unpredictable bunch those stock market monkeys are.

 Meanwhile, back on the right, Osborne blusters:

“We will be squeezing budgets like welfare, which are a drag on the British economy. This country has more children, a higher proportion of children, in workless households than any other country in Europe. And that is not acceptable.”

Because nothing says small government liberalism like social engineering…