Are The Lib Dems Missing The Point Of Their Time In Government?
Chris Bowers questions whether the Lib Dems are taking full advantage of their time in government.
12 Oct 2011, 12:00
A Green Agenda
It may be true, only time will tell. But from the vantage point of history – my time machine has taken me to about 2030 – I wonder if the Lib Dems are missing the point of their time in government.
The yin of the liberal mindset is clearly telling the party to show its responsible side, to act in the national interest at a time of severe economic downturn, while the yang is calling on it to express frustration at everything from NHS reforms to the fact that the Lib Dems are supping with the devil in government. But both Lib Dems and Conservatives give the impression of being rabbits caught in the glare of the current economic headlights.
In some circles, today’s economic situation has been long predicted. From the New Economics Foundation to more way-out economists, philosophers and visionaries, there was always going to be a major crash sometime around now. The world’s pursuit of greed and its failure over two decades and more to adjust to environmental and social warnings was always going to end in tears, so the theory goes, and the tears are flowing freely now. At the centre of this broad line of thinking is the validity – or lack of validity – of growth.
In the environmental movement growth is questioned, or among the moderates re-termed ‘sustainable growth’. Among the new economists, GDP is heartily criticised as a poor indicator of a nation’s welfare – for example, you can close a school or local hospital, thus creating major problems for those affected, yet it can show up as a gain for GDP. (The government’s much derided ‘happiness index’ is a tiny way of addressing this concern.)
And yet at a time of great economic pessimism, the old chants are the strongest: we must have growth, we must stimulate the economy to get out of this mess. And with such chants come calls for environmental safeguards to be relaxed as they’re holding back the growth potential of certain industries.
Surely this is the time for the Liberal Democrats to be calling for a new approach to growth! Just as every crisis – whether war, plague, strikes or whatever – spawns a whole range of cottage industries that flourish, so the Lib Dems should surely be encouraging the government towards a totally different concept of growth, one that only has validity if it is going to be of value to the next couple of generations.
So environmental regulations should not be relaxed but strengthened, the standards that industry is required to meet should be raised, and state aid for businesses should be dependent on the long-term value to a sustainable society of what a given business is producing. Yes there will be casualties along the way, especially among the old industries, but there are casualties now, and we have to make sure the casualties are worth it in our pursuit of a better deal at the end. There is evidence that stricter standards work – for example, Europe’s car makers fought tooth and nail against minimum average fuel consumption limits, but those limits were agreed by the EU in 2008 and are now having a dramatic effect on reducing the fuel consumption of new cars.
Perhaps the most damning report for the Lib Dems in the 18 months of the coalition was nothing to do with tuition fees or NHS reforms, but the finding by Jonathon Porritt in May that the government is falling behind on its ‘green’ agenda. Environmental issues can be tackled through regulation or market forces. In coalition with the Conservatives, market forces are more likely to prove attractive than regulations that could be seen to be strangling the economy. But the fact is there’s ample scope for the economy to be ‘greened’ in a way that doesn’t offend Conservative sensibilities, even if it might offend a few Conservative pockets that have bulged off the back of old industries.
In short, the Lib Dems should be playing the role of the Greens in government. They are having some success, the climate change agenda has been pushed further than it would have gone solely in Tory or Labour hands, even if this is being driven by Chris Huhne, the man doing his utmost to become the least popular Lib Dem in government.
But surely Nick Clegg should be seizing the initiative and saying traditional growth is not the way forward, that sustainable growth is necessary. Or, just as trees go through seasons when they don’t grow, a period of no growth is not necessarily a bad option in the long term.
Now that metaphor really would see the Yellows playing the Greens in government.
Comments (3)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
The majority of this post is rubbish (see below) one sentence stands out - "for example, you can close a school or local hospital, thus creating major problems for those affected, yet it can show up as a gain for GDP." How does closing a school or hospital "show up as a gain" for the country's Gross Domestic Product?
Notwithstanding that despite the warmists behaving otherwise the science of climate change is not settled and the hair shirt approach, currently driving people into fuel poverty, is not the only option available to deal with climate change, you are typical wishy-washy about the export of pollution.
The best thing the Liberal Democrats can do in Government is man up and deal with the threats to the country, which might win them a few votes at the next election rather than follow your rather odd ideas. Following your ideas would mean that the only thing we would be leaving to future generations is (un)sustainable debt.
Without growth the only way we can begin to deal with the country's debt is through a huge reduction in living standards, including all the green stuff.
12/10/2011 14:23@startledcod
"warmists"
Oh give it a rest, will you?
"the science of climate change is not settled"
I'm sorry, but you really should stop reading the prize plonkers thumping some rusty old piece of enamelled tin in the Beano, sorry, I meant the Telegraph. The science is very clear and tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles have been published in reputable journals, starting with early articles from the sixties describing how to model temperature and pressure in a column of air.
The problem for the idiots (no other term adequately labels the denialists) is they rely on heroes such as Delingdingbat and "Lord" Monkton, who are proud to display their utter absence of any scientific qualification, rather than the thousands of researchers qualified with doctorates in atmospheric chemistry and physics, metereology, hydrology, geology, paleontology, mathematical modelling, computation and dozens of other interrelated disciplines.
The fact is that the idiots are without understanding which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.
13/10/2011 17:23The trouble with the above article is that it is economically not only incoherent but self defeating..
Lets go green and spend more on the environment and ignore growth.. (just as well as higher costs tend to discourage growth).
So money grow on money trees is the message... or rather the unwritten message.
Proof if ever any is needed that most LD supporters have no economic credntials to go wuth their green ones.
Epic fail..
As for global warming, the problem is not the science but the gross exaggerations lies and frankly faulty modles.
We have nee told winters will get warmer and wetter, that snow will become less frequent and now - surprise - the sun's cyclce means we are going to have a period of colder winters.
The problem is:
the suns' cycle has been known since I studied physics and gealogy 40 years ago.
Apparently the Met Offcie did not include it in their 100 year forecast models.
Frankly the world is warming. But most of the AGW supporters make as much sense as the LDs on economics,
14/10/2011 08:24