Just a couple more days until the European elections and I thought I should probably take a look at the parties’ European election manifestos. Just to check where they stand on the issues I care about. Here’s a whistle-stop tour of where I think the manifestos do well, and where I think there may be an opportunity for change...
So, two things I think are bad, and two things I think are better, starting with:
UKIP's Manifesto
It’s always easier to criticise than compliment, so I’ll start with what I find most difficult to stomach:
Bad manifesto claim 1:
Repealing the Climate Change Act
"The 2008 Climate Change Act costs an estimated £18bn per year – that’s more than £500 for every household in the UK. We will scrap this Act."
Aside from the fact that this figure is disputed by DECC, and that the same report on the impact of the Climate Change Act reckoned that there were potential savings of £1,020 billion, repealing the Act would be an absolute disaster. At a time when green policies are being thrown out the window left, right and centre, the Act is just about the most progressive bit of climate change legislation we have and a powerful tool through which to hold the government to account on its commitments to reduce carbon emissions.
Bad manifesto claim 2:
"The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive will shut many vital oil and coal-fired power stations in 2015. OFGEM warns that plant closures could cause blackouts."
I mean, this position is perfectly acceptable if you don’t believe in man-made climate change, but for those of us that do accept that it is real and quite scary closing coal-fired power stations is a bit of a priority. As for the claim that the LCPD will cause blackouts, well, we did some digging of our own on this (including giving OFGEM a ring) and found that this is no more true than could have been claimed in 2007 and again in 2010 if you’re as committed as UKIP seem to be to misinterpreting figures.
Better manifesto claim 1:
Not really a claim as such, but I do quite like UKIP’s design and their ability to put across their points in a clear and concise way (it does help if there’s no substance to what you’re saying). In terms of general layout and readability their manifesto is by far my favourite of all the parties.
Better manifesto claim 2:
Nope, I tried, but I really couldn’t find one – so I’ll just stick in another bad one that I found particularly annoying: If you really think that all investment in wind and solar is wasteful (which UKIP mention twice in their manifesto), perhaps you could ask Roger Helmer, UKIP MEP and parliamentary candidate for Newark, whether he thinks his investment in solar panels that generate £1k per year for him was a waste.
Next up, it’s the Conservative Party’s manifesto
We’re starting from a stronger base here given that the party (with a few notable exceptions) at least accepts climate change is real and needs tackling.
Bad manifesto claim 1:
"[We will] work with European partners such as Poland to develop fully Europe’s shale gas resource."
There are quite a lot of things I could say about fracking, why it’s a stupid idea, how the government claims are wildly overstating the case as well as plenty of little titbits that all contribute to the case against it – and if you want to read more then I recommend our review of all the evidence against fracking. But my main concern about this claim in the context of a European election manifesto is that the Conservative party seems to be attempting to exploit the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine as justification for exploiting our shale gas reserves as fast as possible. This is being done with little concern for the evidence against pursuing fracking or the public’s overwhelming support for renewables as opposed to fracking.
Bad manifesto claim 2:
"[We have] spent over £2.4 billion on flood defence infrastructure in the first four years of this Parliament, compared to the £2.2 billion spent in the final four years of the last Parliament."
This isn’t true - the claim was successfully challenged at the time and led to DEFRA admitting that the figures were a little misleading. In addition to this, unless we start to take more ambitious action to tackle climate change (which, by the way the minister in charge of spending on flooding, Owen Paterson, isn’t sure is such a big deal), the flooding’s only going to get worse and the cost will carry on rising. What does ambitious action on climate change mean? Well for starters not going hell for leather for fracking given the scant evidence suggesting shale gas will displace more polluting fossil fuels; and definitely not overseeing the stealthy renaissance of coal that is currently underway.
Better manifesto claim 1:
"[We] support an ambitious and equitable international deal on climate change, including campaigning for EU countries to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2030."
Arguably the commitment to helping bring about a global deal on climate change is the most important bit of any party’s manifesto – it’s reassuring to read that this hasn’t slipped out. The UK has a strong voice in the EU and consequently in the global climate negotiations. Our support for ambitious targets is therefore very important, the only problem is that I wouldn't consider 40% to be anywhere near as ambitious as we need to be - 55% at least please, or the whole thing is worthless.
Better manifesto claim 2:
"[We] launched a national tree planting campaign – The Big Tree Plant – which has already seen 100,000 trees planted, and will plant a million by 2015."
This is nice. Very good. Yay trees.
Third, we have the Lib Dem manifesto
Filled with bold promises – just like their last one. It’s a little hard to find things to improve in such a wonderful list of ambitious and progressive policies, but if we’ve learnt anything about coalition goverments since 2010 it’s that red lines don’t actually mean very much.
Manifesto claim 1:
"Liberal Democrats will continue to support ambitious energy efficiency policy at European level as it is key to sustainability, competitiveness and energy security. Studies show that the biggest cost-effective potential lies with buildings. We will therefore support future EU policies that will make our homes greener, warmer and cheaper to heat."
What’s good about this claim:
Well, lots actually. But what I’m most impressed with is that despite all the three major parties having strong commitments to reduce carbon emissions as well as lower bills, the Lib Dems are the only party that has integrated this policy throughout their manifesto. They regularly emphasise how important energy efficiency is if we want to tackle both fuel poverty and climate change.
What’s not so good:
One consequence of the Deregulation Bill that the Lib Dems have been pushing through could be that councils that wish to set stronger and more ambitious energy efficiency targets might be prevented from doing so. Instead central Government will set all green building standards, which are almost certain to be less ambitious thus damaging the green building sector.
Manifesto claim 2:
"Renewable energy is the UK’s biggest national energy resource, and has already brought over 35,000 jobs to the UK economy, many in areas of high unemployment. Efficient exploitation of offshore wind requires co-operation and co-ordination with other North Sea countries. Liberal Democrats want to see a positive, stable long-term European policy supporting the development and deployment of renewables to maximise opportunities for UK investors, British businesses in the supply chain and green jobs."
What’s good about this claim:
More renewables equals more jobs and less carbon emissions, and the whole thing is made a lot easier if we collaborate with other countries in the EU.
What’s not so good:
If this is what they believe why on earth didn’t they support the 2030 decarbonisation amendment to the Energy Bill! It would have made it absolutely clear to the renewables industry (which was strongly behind the target) that this government is serious about backing green energy; whereas now nobody’s sure which way the wind is blowing when it comes to energy, potentially costing massive investment opportunities and therefore jobs.
Time to have a look at Labour’s manifesto
Bad manifesto claim 1:
Not a claim as such, but given the level of detail given to other policy areas in the manifesto – I was a little disappointed with how little is said about energy, environment and climate change. A few platitudes for sure, but not much in the way of concrete commitments.
Bad manifesto claim 2:
There was so little to be said I struggled to find anything particularly bad.
Better manifesto claim 1:
"At home, Labour will help people facing a cost of living crisis by freezing energy prices until January 2017."
Probably Labour’s most famous manifesto commitment, widely commented on when it was announced at the party conference last year. I’m definitely keen to see my fuel bills frozen. It would be nice to have some reassurance that the price freeze will be done in line with our emissions reductions targets – but I couldn’t find that anywhere in the manifesto…
Better manifesto claim 2:
"Labour MEPs delivered an overhaul of European fishing rules including a new ban on throwing unwanted fish back into the sea."
Probably more accurate if it said that Labour MEPs helped deliver an overhaul of European fishing rules given the fact that Richard Benyon, a Conservative minister, was instrumental in this process. However, this was really an issue when parties came together to deliver a piece of legislation that is vital to making our fisheries more sustainable.
Finally, the Green manifesto
By far the most ambitious of the manifestos environment-wise, there is little to criticise here, nevertheless I’ll give it a go.
Bad manifesto claim 1:
Unlike their minor-party rivals, UKIP, the Greens haven’t quite got the clear, concise thing quite right. Maybe when people complain that they don’t know what the Green party’s policies are beyond green issues what they actually mean is all that text squeezed into such a small space gave them a headache and so they stopped reading.
Better manifesto claim 1:
"Oppose the extraction of shale gas through fracking. We already have more than enough fossil fuels in known conventional reserves to deliver dangerous climate change, and the risk to local environments from fracking is too high."
There’s plenty I like in this manifesto, but I definitely think being the only party to be so explicitly against fracking is something to be proud of.
Better manifesto claim 2:
"[Green MEPs’] response to a separate consultation on state aid for aviation called for an end to state subsidies to the aviation industry."
Similar to the last point, the Greens are the only party opposing the expansion of the aviation industry. A third runway at Heathrow, an estuary airport, greater capacity at Gatwick all have in common the fact that they’d greatly increase the carbon emissions of an industry that already accounts for 13% of the UK’s climate impact as well as cause misery for local communities due to noise pollution.
Make your own choice about which party best represents your views at votematch.org.uk
