The Green Gamble
Analysing Sunak's divide and conquer strategy on green politics
Much has been said on the Conservative Party’s implementation of divide and rule tactics, utilising issues such as migrants, trans rights and crime. However, with a series of largely anti-green policies such as the issuing of over 100 new oil and gas licences as well as Sunak placing himself ‘on the side of motorists’, it appears that the Conservatives may additionally be trying to do the same over climate issues.
Environmental issues are certainly something which must be considered more heavily in this election than in those prior, with 82% of respondents considering climate change to be either very or fairly important in YouGov’s most recent polling. Despite this, and in the face of the results from Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the Conservatives may be trying to operate with an economic focus, rather than an environmental one, in the hope that the British public will be doing the same. The Conservative strategy is based on the idea that the public will prioritise economic rejuvenation and stability over the need for green transition / policies. The issue of the economy is, after all, the largest issue in the eyes of the electorate.
This creation of a dividing line is even more obvious when considering the attempts to align the Labour party with Just Stop Oil, a group which is seen heavily unfavourably with the public, with a 68% disapproval rate. Such action can be seen with the parliamentary letters sent by Grant Shapps to Keir Starmer, insinuating that the party is deeply aligned with the group.
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1681756923589283842?s=20
However, to come to the conclusion that the Conservatives have reached seems like a huge misconstrue of election results. Whilst the issues with the implementation of ULEZ may indeed have been a pivotal factor to the maintenance of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat, to extrapolate this into policy on a dividing issue is a particularly risky game to play. It is a theory which is based on an impossibly small sample. Issues such as ULEZ are not nationally applicable, and will not be able to split the voters alike how thay have done in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Most of the population is not posed with the choice of having to prioritse the economy over environmentalism and this lack of cost may be most widely seen in the seats in which Labour lost in 2019, the shattering of the old Red Wall. For this Conservative position to work voters would have to feel they cannot have one or the other, the economy or environmental action. Unfortunately for them, this does not appear to be the case - as Dominic Cummings has said, the ULEZ fiasco has allowed for an implausible extrapolation of events into theories, ones which could make their situation worse.
Even when looking at how this position affects their image, this may not be quite as helpful as the party might have been hoped. With this economic first, environmentalism last line they have tried to paint themselves as pragmatic, and Labour as these environmental dreamers and stability wreckers who simply want to have their cake and eat it. This line aims to challenge and highlight Labour’s shaky economic responsibility in the eyes of the public. This is because ULEZ can be seen to be a direct interference in many people’s lives, and as such Labour may risk portraying themselves as the ‘taxman’, the big state ‘wrecker’ which wants to limit what the people can do, a far more scary proposition for the electorate. The motif has a dual function of additionally portraying Labour as ‘dreamers’ – a line which has been used with great regularity and effect, but largely needs the incumbent to have a strong economy to successfully deliver as it requires the Labour party to be regarded as a risk to the nation in much the same way that the ‘magic money tree’ was previously used. But, when the path you are already going down looks dire, the risk certainly does not appear quite so large.
Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the issues with this position don’t simply stop with the image and the applicability of the environmental policies truly affecting the British public.
When regarding the attempt to paint the Labour party with the bright orange tar brush, Starmer has done more than attempt to simply refute such speculation, drawing a hard line and calling the actions of Just Stop Oil as contemptible. In doing so, this limits the radical, unsafe edge that the Conservatives may have hoped that Labour may have taken up. Additionally, it no longer feels impossible to be able to not have to sacrifice things in the aim of greater environmentalism. In fact, the opposite fells more true, with Green Energy presenting a huge opportunity for Britain, as highlighted in New Consensus Notes #2: The Great Energy State.
In Starmer setting up his environmental position, the lines in the sand are starting to be set for the next election. But Sunak’s application of the divide and conquer technique does not look like it will sit so well when it comes to environmental issues nor may it bear the electoral fruit he so desires.
Thank you for reading, if you enjoyed the piece please subscribe, like and share. You can follow Dylan on twitter (now X) @cridland_dylan
