The Uxbridge by-election has thrown Labour into a civil war, or at least a civil skirmish. Keir Starmer has told Sadiq Khan to think again on Ulez, and Khan has shown great reluctance to do so. But it has exposed a schism in the Conservatives, too.
Yesterday, Rishi Sunak declared that efforts to reach the government’s net zero target should not be allowed to push up the cost of living for struggling families – leading some to predict that some policies, such as the ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030, could be scrapped. This has brought out the Tories’ net zero enthusiasts to defend the target, even if it does cost households a great deal of money.
The government seems to favour policies which will hit ordinary people while sparing the wealthy their private jets
Lord Barwell, who was Theresa May’s chief of staff when net zero was nodded through the Commons in the dying days of her government, has taken to Twitter to accuse politicians of not being honest when they claim that net zero can be achieved without imposing the cost of living for households. But, he claims, the fact that net zero will cost us all shouldn’t deter the government from pursuing it – because public opinion is heavily on its side.
The trouble is, the IPSOS poll (from last November) that he links to in an effort to back his point suggests the opposite of what he claims it does (and, indeed, what the headline of IPSOS’ press release claimed). When people are asked whether they support the net zero target in general they tend to say ‘yes’. But when they are asked whether they support specific policies, taking into account the effect on their personal finances, they answer very differently.
Subsidies for electric vehicles? A net balance of minus 13 per cent of people said they support them. Phasing out gas boilers? Minus 14 per cent. Access to ‘sustainable pension funds’? Minus 31 per cent. An increase in vegetarianism? Minus 27 per cent. Low traffic neighbourhoods? Minus 39 per cent.
It would have been interesting to know how many people support the policy of banning petrol and diesel cars by 2030. Similarly it would have been intriguing how many support the Scottish government’s policy of banning the sale of homes unless they reach a ‘C’ rating in an Energy Performance Certificate (a policy which has been proposed for England, too). Nevertheless, the IPSOS poll didn’t specifically ask that.
Interestingly, the one policy which did seem to appeal to the public is a ‘frequent flyer levy’, which had net support of plus 10 per cent. This is quite possibly because ordinary people are offended by the hypocrisy of elite figures who preach about climate change and then jet off around the world as if efforts to cut carbon emissions should not apply to them. But that is not something which the government is proposing. Rather the government seems to favour policies which will hit ordinary people while sparing the wealthy their private jets – not, one might have thought, a great election-winning strategy.
Will Sunak really water down net zero policies as he suggested he might? You can forget the net zero target by 2050 being dropped in the near future, although it will almost certainly have to be revised nearer the time. That is a legal commitment and would require legislation to amend.
The ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2030 is another matter. The EU has already watered down its own commitment on this front, saying that internal combustion engine cars will still be allowed after 2035, so long as they are capable of being run on synthetic fuels. (This applies to all car engines, given that synthetic fuels could be made to any recipe you like.)
Gas boilers? The proposal to ban replacements by 2035 – and force people to fit heat pumps at £10,000 a time, minimum – will also very likely to have be revised at some point. But before we get to gas boilers, a bigger political problem for the Tories is likely to be the proposed ban on new oil boilers by 2026. There are four million homes in Britain off the gas grid – and many of them are in rural, Conservative-held constituencies. There will inevitably be a very big reaction in the shires when the implications become clear.
Comments