Energy Wars - The Return of Green Conservatism?

   

And it's your move, Mr. Miliband.

  Yes, that's right, Messrs Cameron and Clegg have struck back against the Labour onslaught with their latest shiny policy - £1,000 for homebuyers to spend on energy-saving measures. This comes, of course, in the wake of several weeks' vicious fighting on the subject of energy prices - a subject which has become the key battleground in the war for cost of living. Since the Labour Party Conference, when Miliband revealed his flagship energy price freeze policy, the conflict has seemingly been going his way. Will the Coalition's latest offering sufficiently bedazzle the public into rushing headlong into the encircling blue-and-yellow arms? 

  Energy policy is a dangerous area for the major political parties. They must strike a delicate balance between keeping costs down for consumers, many of whom are struggling to keep pace with the rising cost of fuel, and appearing to be 'green' in the face of a growing minority of climate change sceptics. The Conservative Party in particular, having rebranded itself with its stylish tree logo under David Cameron, has a very thin line to toe - it cannot afford to forget entirely its pledge to be the 'greenest government ever', but neither can it risk the wrath of the mass media which any kind of environment-linked tax increase would surely bring upon it. Osborne has toyed with the idea of abolishing the so-called 'Green Tax' (a levy on energy bills accounting for roughly 14% of your annual cost) in a bid to reduce energy costs and keep pace with Labour, but the UK as a whole has its own targets to meet - an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, based on 1990 levels. It will be difficult, if not nigh-on impossible, for the Coalition to make the necessary improvements towards this target and still cut the levy.

  So in that case, surely the new handouts are, politically, a massive triumph for the government? A thousand pounds isn't a lot of money on a macroeconomic scale, but to individual households it can be the difference between being in fuel poverty and not. It will be popular with the poorer sections of society that the government has previously had a rocky relationship with and the fact that these grants are being given to spend on energy-saving measures means the government looks 'green' into the bargain. Success!

  Well, perhaps. But I think it is much more likely that the policy will be lost into the general melee surrounding energy prices and the wider cost-of-living debate. The thing is, a similar policy already exists - the 'Green Deal'. This initiative is designed to allow businesses and households to become more eco-friendly and pay back the costs of the necessary modifications over time rather than up front. In principle, the Green Deal is a commendable idea, but there's a snag: no-one wants it. In total, by the end of August - a full nine months after the scheme launched - only 677 households had asked to proceed with the scheme. Of these, just twelve had had the energy-saving measures actually installed. Twelve. Take the UK average of 2.3 persons per household and that means an uninspiring 0.00004% of the population have felt the benefits of the scheme. Now that's a figure that even Alastair Campbell would find it difficult to put a positive spin on.

  The new policy, being as it is a straightforward grant rather than a cunningly-disguised loan, is likely to prove more popular but still there is no fire in it. The Coalition simply doesn't have the drive that Labour - long stuck drifting in the doldrums of politics - seems to have finally regained. Miliband's energy price freeze may have been reckless and arguably irresponsible - given its timing - but it has certainly been popular, and has generated much comment in both mainstream and social media. By contrast, the triumvirate of Cameron, Osborne and Clegg have made a number of comments and announced several new policies, but have failed to make much impact at all. The winds of political fortune are still blowing very much Mr Miliband's way - the question is, can he keep it that way? On the subject of green conservatism meanwhile, the jury is out. The Energy Wars will likely rage on for some time to come.

The Social Security Debate - and why it completely misses the point

  Persistent debate rages around the issue of social security benefits. The Tories and their Lib Dem collaborators seem intent on slashing the welfare bill as much as physically possible, whilst activists on the left argue for a more generous settlement as a safety net to support the UK’s poorest people. Labour, meanwhile, stands to one side looking at the floor and trying not to upset either side too much – it doesn’t know where its next vote is going to come from, after all.

  The sharp rightwards lurch of the post-recession political landscape of the UK is understandable in light of the recklessness of the previous, supposedly left-wing government, but its consequences have been highly damaging. The social security bill is indeed high, there is no denying it – 28% of government spending, some £200 billion a year – but crippling reductions to benefit payments, disguised as ‘reorganisations’, are not the answer.

  I understand the concerns that many people have. There is a perceived unfairness that some workers earn a paltry wage, barely enough to sustain themselves and their families, and that their taxes contribute to the benefits payments of individuals who do not work. I understand because I have been in a situation where every penny was having to be counted as it came in the door, and double-checked again on the way out. I am sure many of us have, and we can therefore feel some sympathy with working-class people who feel this way. But the Daily Mail-fuelled frenzy of recriminations and punishment for uncommitted crimes has to stop.

  The fiercest conflict, over the payment of unemployment benefits, is particularly damaging, demonising and vilifying an entire section of society. 7.7% of the UK working-age population are out of work, and though there is of course the odd fraudulent claimant, the numbers are relatively minute. Less than 1% of total benefits claimed are fraudulent (according to government estimates) and the total wasted in this way is less than the excess paid out due to bureaucratic error, yet if one were to believe the right-wing media an entire horde of lazy, good-for-nothing scroungers should be found lurking behind the front door of every council house in Britain. The fact that these people patently do not exist seems to be of little import to the media moguls and their extortionately overpaid editors – as long as it sells papers, who cares if it happens to be untrue?

  Quite apart from being damaging, the furore over unemployment benefit also misses the real point entirely. Jobseeker’s allowance cost the UK £4.91 billion in the financial year 2011-12, just 2.46% of the social security total. Whilst a not insignificant sum of money, this is comparatively small when compared to other forms of social security. By far the biggest drain on the Department for Work and Pensions’ budget is the state pension – around 50% - but there are other significant areas where savings can far more easily, and more fairly, be made.

  Tax credits and income support allowance – benefits given to people whose incomes are not high enough to support their existence – cost more than seven times as much as Jobseeker’s Allowance, and yet these make almost no ripples in the press. Whilst the unemployed are demonised for an economic situation that is no fault of their own another, larger sector of society is kept from sinking to join them only by the annual injection of £36.83 billion. These are people, do not forget, who are actually in work but whose employers choose to pay them such a miniscule wage that they are unable to live without constant help from the state.

  And instead of objecting to this deeply immoral state of affairs; instead of rectifying the wrongs of a capitalist system run rampant; instead, in short, of forcing those unscrupulous companies paying what they know full well is an impossibly low salary to clean up their act and pay a living wage, the government simply stand back, nod and smile whilst international corporate conglomerations treat their staff like serfs, and then run along afterwards to plug the gap with taxpayers’ money.

  Taxpayers’ money which, as they themselves delight in telling us, is running rather low.

  The answer is simple: raise the minimum wage to the ‘living wage’ standard arrived at by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation - £8.80 in London and £7.65 in the rest of the UK. This will force the businesses benefitting from the labour of working people to actually pay for it, rather than expecting the public to subsidise their companies’ operation. We will cut nearly £40 billion from the welfare bill at a stroke, and without cutting a single benefit. From both a practical and political standpoint, it makes absolute sense.

  Except, that is, if you happen to be a member of the established political class. Because, let’s face it, the majority of the Parliamentary branches of all three major parties in the UK have succumbed to the lure of big business. Industrial giants donate vast sums of cash to the political elite and provide favours and introductions wherever they are needed. In return, they expect certain benefits – and a subsidised labour force is part of that. Tax credits are just one part of this corrupt covenant – others include the Workfare Programme and the distribution of honours to government business partners – but they are a significant part, and cost the taxpayer huge amounts every year. We are paying through the nose to support capitalist interests perfectly capable of looking after themselves, only to be told the country doesn’t have any money.

  It’s time to end this. Call on Parliament to vote through the requisite legislation and end the foolishness of taxpayers being forced to fund the excesses of corporations who make their money by exploiting the populace. We can save billions without slashing benefits for the poorest members of society, and we can do it tomorrow. All we need to do is put aside our petty differences and push for a fairer society, together.