It was interesting to hear a Conservative lobbyist discussing the new political landscape yesterday. If I might summarise his argument it was "Since none of you tax justice advocates in this room probably voted Tory, and you don't think like the Tories do, why should they listen to you?"
The message was pretty clear: start thinking like the Tories, recruit Tories and work out what Carry Symonds likes because she is the real power behind Johnson.
I heard the message. I am not sure I agree with it. Of course the Tories are on the crest of a wave right now but I reject the idea of such binary thinking. It's as is the world is made of two tribes:
I have criticised this logic from the left. This is not how the world is. The truth is it is like this:
The world that neither many on the left or right think about is bigger than their horizons, and there are more people in it than are engaged with politics. And that real world does not ever include examples of the more extreme thinking of the left and right, which cannot be sustained in practice. There are overlaps with their ideas, of course. But the truth is that too much current political thinking is simply unrelated to the real world.
And that real world is messy, and requires compromise, which the simplistic political theories of too many in politics do not recognise, and engage with even less.
The logic of the person presenting their view yesterday typified the current binary thinking of politics. But that, I suggest, is not the thinking that we need. An ability to listen to and engage across the spectrum is required, even if politics will always overweight some opinion to suit the preferences of the politicians in power.
I would suggest it is time that all sides also recognised this fact. There should be no such thing as government for selected interests alone: ultimately the art of government is about serving an interest but not alienating the rest. The idea that those not aligned with the government are, then. alien to it is dangerous. And it's worrying that it's increasingly accepted that this is the world we are living in.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The current voting system of ‘first past the post’ where ‘winner takes all’ allows comments like this to have credibility, tainted as it is, with the arrogance of power. Only a change to the voting system, which makes the parliament and people that represent us more reflective of the different opinions that constitute our country as a whole, will allow the art of compromise to hold its proper and important place.
if you want to try and persuade such people of things then I do think it’s important to be able to present arguments in different ways, for example:
Tories believe themselves to be tough on law and order, national security etc. The reality is different, but that is their perception, and something that they hold deeply as a value.
So if we want to persuade them of the need for a Green New Deal, one of the main arguments directed at them should be that we reduce our dependence upon foreign energy – it is a fundamental matter of national security. Separately, that the risk of catastrophic climate change risks migration crises on a previously unprecedented scale. Their natural tendency on that would be to shut the doors, tight. However, if we’re able to prevent that even being necessary, maybe that appeals to them.
I’m struggling to put this into a coherent form of words, but the art of building a new political consensus around issues requires us to present arguments in a way that they can cut through people’s existing ideas, prejudices, beliefs, ideologies.
It’s like selling a product. You find out what appeals to the buyer, and then you target your marketing towards how that product will meed their needs, aspirations (insecurities!), values. Only with politics there are different groups of buyers and a multi-pronged strategy is needed. There’s no need to tell the left of the importance of the green new deal; they get it. You need to persuade ordinary folk that it will reduce their energy bills and increase their security and quality of life.
You get what I am trying to say
And I am saying it because it can work
And it is radical
I watched/listened to the maiden speech of my newly elected MP yesterday, I don’t suppose I would have if he had not been the candidate I voted for, so I suppose I’m as guilty of tribalism as the next person 🙂 But my point is that in the Commons there is perhaps the last vestige of respect shown between the tribes in the tradition of addressing a few kind words to the unseated candidate, albeit in a very sparsely populated House. I would have found those kind words difficult to say about the defeated party whom I regarded as a waste of space.
At the level of active politicians it has frequently been acknowledged that MPs of different tribes have much in common and form genuine friendships. There is an archive, much circulated, photo of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness sharing a joke, which is not to say they were ever friends as such, but they were human, contrary to the impression often given in the media. I recall feeling somewhat betrayed by what appeared to be complicity between them that gave the lie to their very public antagonism. There is a parallel here with the behaviour of footballers. They compete on the field in their different coloured shirts, but it is in the ranks of the supporters that the true passion is found.
I think you met a Tory of the football supporter mentality yesterday. One who revels in vicarious triumph. There are many of them screaming and fist shaking on the terraces of social media. There is a fine line between celebrating and gloating. The individual contest is binary, and is traditionally concluded with a hand shake, and sometimes the exchanging of shirts, because the games of both football and politics are eternal.
The game goes on. As Bill Shankley observed, not a matter of ‘life and death’. It’s more important than that.
Thanks Andy
You lift my spirits
I’m not sure if you are aware of it, but there is a glaring contradiction between this post and your previous one. In this one you’re calling for more attention to be paid to the middle ground where most people live and work and for the avoidance of ideological or sectional extremes and in the previous one you are condemning the banking industry as if it were a monolithic entity when the retail banking industry (as distinct from banks’ investment and trading activities) is deeply embedded in the lives and work of everyone in the middle.
In this context, a look at the most recent estimates of UK CO2 emissions by sectors is enlightening. Of the the total of 364.1 MTCO2e, energy supply emits just less than 100 MT, with power stations contributing about two-thirds. This has halved since 2010. The biggest source is transport (121.4 MT) and this has changed little since 2010. The next biggest emissions are from the business and residential sectors and are tied at 65.9 MT. Since 2010 emissions from business have fallen by a sixth. After the GFC residential emissions fell by a quarter, but seem to be stuck since. There is little doubt there is a combination of energy efficiency and fuel poverty embedded in these figures.
So who are the polluters? And how can this pollution (emissions) be reduced even more? The energy supply industry has made huge strides. But the transport, business and residential sectors pose the biggest challenge. Considerable effort is being expended to chart a course to convert the energy supply networks to hydrogen as one of the most effective means (when combined with CCS) to achieve net zero. The reforming of methane (natural gas) and electrolysis are the principal established means of producing hydrogen at the scale required. But the resulting energy cost per unit of replacing natural gas with hydrogen in business and residential space-heating applications, at least initally, is likely to be two or three times the unit cost of natural gas. The ratio is similar for transport and industrial processes.
But a concerted political and policy drive has the potential to achieve this change in an economically and socially acceptable manner once it is combined with other supportive policies. Ironically, this ensures a continuing role for natural gas and with the enormous increase in US production, combined with increased production and liquefaction in other countries, the global price of gas is falling and is likely to remain low for the foreseeable future. This will reduce the cost of gas as an input to hydrogen production at scale.
The reality is that this transition will be performed ultimately by people in the middle ground through changes in productive activity and consumption behaviour and these activities and behaviours will be supported by banks. And that will include the financing of gas production.
Of course, this is a total anathema to those who vilify the fossil fuel industry and their providers of finance. And that vilification and extremism is one sure way of repelling all those in the middle ground whose support and consent is required to make this transition.
I do not see the contradictions
I am suggesting the bankers’ comments are extreme and are easily seen as such
They too need to find the plausible common ground
I expect we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Most people and businesses who are in the middle ground don’t demand energy commodities per se; they’re demand is for power, lighting, heating and cooling. The challenge is to meet this demand with zero CO2 emissions. For the foreseeable future renewables and non-carbon emitting sources will take us only so far. Fossil fuels with progressive increases in carbon-abatement will continue to play a major role. Demonising fossil fuel producers as the primary and major source of CO2 emissions, as so many climate change activists do, and demanding and agitating that they drastically reduce production (or indeed that they cease completely) is totally counter-productive. The prodcuers are simply responding to the ultimate demand for power, lighting, heating and cooling and it those who rely on fossil fuels to meet this demand who are the real polluters – and that’s most of us.
Ultimately, it’s down to a sufficient number of citizens to be convinced of the need to demand carbon-free energy to meet their demand for power, lighting, heating and cooling and to empower governments to facilitate and enforce the change. Fossil fuel producers and intermediate transformers and distributors of energy are changing their activities and will change them even more in response to concerted popular and policy pressure and facilitation. And banks will have a major role in facilitating this process. But they will not, and should not, drive this process.
Demonising fossil fuel producers and others in the supply chains and agitating against their providers of finance diminishes both their ability and incentives to adapt, could seriously damage their financial viability as they seek to adapt and could provoke a strong public reaction from those who rely on their services. And that’s just what we don’t want.
With respect you utterly lose it when you say we are the ultimate polluters
That is just wrong
That is only true because producers make their profit by continuing to sell products that impose massive – even fatal – costs on society as a whole and seek to present the development of real alternatives – which they are undoubtedly doing
Your logic is totally wrong in my opinion
As I’ve indicated, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I remain unconvinced that the conflict and unintended consequences generated by imposing arbitrary constraints on the activities of energy producers either in or from the developed economies will be a useful contribution to the transition to carbon free energy. And I can’t see how it will contribute to convincing enough citizens to place a sufficiently high value on carbon-free energy to ensure its supply on a sustainable basis.
Then kiss the world goodbye then, at least as far as us humans goes
Paul Hunt says:
“The challenge is to meet this demand with zero CO2 emissions. For the foreseeable future renewables and non-carbon emitting sources will take us only so far. ”
Yes. But the investment needs to be in the new and zero carbon emission generation, not in producing more coal mines and coal burning power stations….or whatever it is you are suggesting. The current generators are not going to suddenly stop generating. The investment need is in replacing them as fast or preferably slightly faster (since demand is not going to reduce, and will almost certainly increase at a faster pace than at present) than the current generators become obsolete (or to use the technical jargon ‘shagged-out’).
There is apparently too much easy money to be had from investing in obsolete (dirty) technology. That is certainly the impression I’m getting from Australian commentators. Mining industry corporate capture of government there is causing very grave concern. But then, the Aussies are irrationally sentimental about their woodland and upset because European-country-sized swathes of it are going up in flames. Silly sentimental creatures that they are.
Zero carbon emission generation will take us ALL the way, or we aren’t going anywhere very far. But we do need to get on with it. If the banks won’t drive the process they’ll have to go. They aren’t earning their keep. Those who believe the markets will provide solutions need to have the confidence to demonstrate it. But they don’t, do they ? Have the confidence, that is. And apparently you don’t either. 🙁
Guess what ? Neither do I.
Paul Hunt refers to:
“the conflict and unintended consequences generated by imposing arbitrary constraints on the activities of energy producers ….”
Have you no idea what the potential consequences of millions more people displaced from their home ranges are going to look like ? And you are worried by a few disappointed bankers and corporate execs throwing a hissy fit because they haven’t made their bonus this year?
We’ve got a handful displaced by war at present. That doesn’t begin to ……
When I quoted the latest estimates of UK CO2 emissions by sector, I was attempting to highlight where most progress has been made (such as in energy supply) and the sectors that were the most sticky (business, transport and residential). It’s just not good enough to say that clean electricity will power transport and heating. It may do so in the future in ways that we haven’t worked out yet, but I can’t see how it makes sense to seek to replace the millions of gas-fired heating systems in millions of homes and businesses with electric or alternative systems in short order. And converting the transport fleet (both commercial and private) is a huge challenge.
UK emissions are at around 6 TCO2e per capita at the moment. We’re broadly in line with the other European members of the OECD and heading in the right direction. The hard yards lie ahead and it makes sense to use and adapt existing kit in combination with carbon free sources to push harder.
It’s been attributed to Goethe, but the saw “If everyone swept outside their own door the street would be clean” seems very relevant. And effective democratic governance is the best way of ensuring the sweeping is done, so the pressure should be increased on the non-European OECD members with much higher emissions per capita. However, the lastest EIU report shows that globally democracy is in retreat. Some authoritarian regimes who are among the biggest per capita emitters, such as China, fearful of losing popular legitimacy, are making progress. But it is hard-won, there is only fitful commitment and we have only one atmosphere. Perhaps the climate change activists should focus their extinction rebellion antics on the authoritarian regimes in high emission countries who govern the majority of the planet’s population.
Thankfully others can work it out Paul
Which is good news for us all
Eh?
Paul I don’t know where you are getting your facts and assumprtions from from or what you imagine your timescales to be but they all look like a muddle of confusion.
To begin with hydrogen doesn’t have to be specifically introduced to replace everything and anything.
The total production cost of renewables are already cheaper than coal ,nuclear and gas for generating electricity and electricity can power most things including heating and vehicles. That only leaves the “baseload” or “storage” issue to contend with. Both domestic and grid-scale batteries are already being used as well as getting cheaper and better.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5
https://theconversation.com/utilities-are-starting-to-invest-in-big-batteries-instead-of-building-new-power-plants-110961
Hydrogen: https://energypost.eu/renewable-hydrogen-already-cost-competitive-says-new-research/
They could always invest in Education. Teach people how to use an opwn mind. Ge t tne ‘rentier’ mentality out of teaching and let people young and aging enjoy learning again. we are almost an aliterate society which is shameful for such an ‘advanced’ society. There is lifw beyond telly and smart phones. Lets use it! The history section of the local Library is a good place to start.
Chris B says:
“The history section of the local Library is a good place to start.”
Hmmmm… if you’ve still got a local library. (I’m okay, I do have one, I have a government that has done a great deal to preserve public services).
I get a little cross with people who are fixated on paper books. Just because you like them (and I do too, I have loads and keep buying them faster than I can read them) doesn’t mean they are the be all and end all. Where there are libraries most of the books flying in and out are entertainment. Bodice rippers, thrillers etc…..
There is a very old saying, ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink’. The internet offers the the greatest access to the greatest amount of knowledge that has ever been assembled. It’s accessible to the vast majority of the population, but you cannot force them to take advantage of it. Not if they would rather play silly games or have trivial chat on social media platforms. (And yes I hate telly too. I don’t have one.)
How much time did you waste at school ? We all do it. If you had your time again you’d pay more attention. We maybe all would.
Please don’t blame modern technology for what is a very human failure to appreciate it. What we have is bloody fantastic. Absolutely amazing !! But you can’t force people to use it to best advantage. Especially when we have a system of education which operates like classic aversion therapy.
The internet is not a window on a virtual world. You are a real person, and so am I. We’re neither of us ‘virtual’.
Don’t forget that libraries were (are, where they still exist) not just information storage.
My other half used to work in the library system in the North East, before much of it became volunteer run.
She would frequently comment on how many people, who had been skilled tradesmen but had lost their jobs (often the only job they had ever had), would visit the library to apply for new jobs. They would go to the library, not just because it gave them internet access, but also because the librarians would be there to help them if they ever got into trouble. This was important as many were IT illiterate.
Do not underestimate the social cost of library loss. The services provided go well beyond the storage and lending of books.
But, I do understand what you are saying, and the “how to educate people to think for themselves” has been a question of mine for a long time. I still don’t have an answer.
I also agree that he internet is a vast resource, but only if you know how to use it (an argument which will wain as the generations shuffle on)
Although, just to add to the confusion, internet users also have to have an idea of how to filter out bogus information.
It’s a right old minefield isn’t it…
This Tory smugness is a case making hay while the sun shines. As soon the Brexit shite hits the Brexit fan the arrogance will be defensive or not at all. There won’t be any binary simplicity then. They won’t even be able to maintain unity in their own ranks.
I’m afraid I don’t understand these Venn diagrams either, or how they help.
But isn’t it Carrie, not Carry Symonds?
Sorry they don’t work for you
And re Carry or Carrie? I’m not bothered either way.