New event: ‘Back to Business – reopening international travel’, with Grant Shapps

15 Apr

We are very pleased to invite you to ConservativeHome’s next live online event, in which our special guest Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport, will be joined by a distinguished panel for this timely discussion.

Following the recent publication of the Global Travel Taskforce report, there are a host of crucial questions to explore, from the return of tourism and business travel, to the reunification of families separated by the pandemic.

When and how can international travel reopen? What approach offers the best route to do so safely, promptly, and to the greatest benefit for passengers and the wider economy? After a year of unprecedented disruption, how soon will things return to normal, and what will normal look like?

In this event, hosted in partnership with Airlines UK, the Secretary of State will be joined by:

Keith Glatz, Vice-President of Airlines for America and
David Evans, Group CEO of Collinson Group, the UK’s leading provider of Covid-19 travel testing.

The event will be broadcast live via Zoom at 7pm on Tuesday 20th April.

As ever, there will be the chance for the audience to put your questions to the panel.

Click here to register for your free ticket.

Alan Mak: A week on from the Budget, it’s clear that it will boost innovation and productivity

10 Mar

Alan Mak is Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, Co-Chairman of the Party’s Policy Board and MP for Havant

The pandemic has had a significant impact on the British economy. Over 700,000 people have tragically lost their jobs and the economy has shrunk by 10 per cent – the largest fall on record. And the impact could have been far worse had it not been for the Chancellor’s support schemes that have protected jobs and livelihoods throughout, from the furlough scheme to billions paid out in business grants and loans.

Last week’s Budget needed to continue this support for the economy in the short term. But crucially, it also needed to lay the foundations for building the economy of the future. What this country needs – and what Conservatives can wholeheartedly champion – is a robustly pro-growth, pro-enterprise and pro-innovation economy to turbo-charge our exit from the pandemic and help Britain lead the Fourth Industrial Revolution, all while remaining internationally competitive.

Last Wednesday, the Chancellor delivered, with a series of policies that will ensure technology and innovation are at the forefront of our economy. ConservativeHome readers agreed, overwhelmingly backing the Budget with 58 per cent saying it was “good” or “very good” in this site’s latest survey, as did voters polled by YouGov.

Last July, I proposed an IT scrappage & upgrade scheme to equip our promising start-ups, SMEs and scale-ups of tomorrow with better software and technology, in order to enhance productivity which has historically lagged behind our competitors. For years, governments have needed to target the least productive SMEs which have invested insufficiently in the latest software, automation or information technology. And too often, our brilliant small firms don’t have the time or resources to get the extra skills or technology tools they need to be more productive.

That’s why I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s two new Help to Grow schemes, specifically aimed at boosting the productivity of our small businesses. Help to Grow Management will help SMEs get world-class management training through government-funded programmes delivered through British business schools, with businesses contributing just £750 or 10 per cent of the cost of the course.

And Help to Grow Digital will level up the digital skills of our small businesses with vouchers entitling them to 50 per cent off the purchase of new productivity-enhancing software, up to a total of £5,000 each. Both these schemes are exactly what’s needed to tackle the UK’s longstanding productivity challenge, while laying strong foundations for the pro-growth future economy we all want to see.

The Budget went further by delivering other measures which high-growth, innovative companies should welcome. These businesses account for just one per cent of companies in the UK, but generate an amazing 80 per cent of our employment growth.

That’s why consultations to find ways to improve our research and development regime and reform the Enterprise Management Incentive scheme to support growing companies retain talent, are encouraging. Furthermore, ensuring firms have sufficient access to capital is vital, which is why the new Future Fund Breakthrough initiative, successor to the Future Fund, is welcome support for innovative tech businesses to access finance, match-funded by Government.

As the first MP of British-Chinese heritage, I also believe a global outlook and attracting world-class talent to the UK is pivotal to our future economic success. That’s why visa reforms aimed at making it easier for highly-skilled people to come to Britain are especially welcome. These include a new unsponsored points-based visa, and new simplified processes for scale-up founders and entrepreneurs.

These Budget measures to support our businesses and turbocharge our future economic growth build on the Treasury’s other impressive pandemic support schemes, such as extensions to the furlough scheme; temporary VAT cuts and business rates relief; two more self-employment grants; new recovery loans to help businesses access finance; and Restart grants of up to £18,000 for businesses who have been particularly hard hit. Overall, that’s over £400 billion of support this year and next to protect our economy.

I also welcomed the Chancellor’s frankness about the need to begin repairing our public finances. We cannot maintain the current levels of borrowing and debt and expect to be able to respond with another £400 billion when the next crisis hits. And as Conservatives, we believe in sound money and keeping our borrowing under control hence the Chancellor also explained why corporation tax is scheduled to rise for the biggest, most profitable businesses in two years’ time.

The unprecedented ‘Super Deduction’ policy to encourage companies to invest in capital assets such as new machinery – an effective tax cut worth around £25 billion – will also be key to incentivising our SMEs to adopt the latest productivity-enhancing technology. Last year I wrote about the dampening effect on capital expenditure (capex) and investment caused by Coronavirus already being large and destructive. The Bank of England predicted a 26 per cent drop in business investment for 2020. In 2009, as the financial crisis erupted, the fall was 16 per cent by comparison. The Super Deduction can help reverse the damage to our country’s technology base.

What we needed to hear from the Chancellor was a mixture of realism about keeping the economy going now, plus a dose of optimism for the future, by laying the groundwork for British businesses to lead the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We received both, building strong foundations for Britain’s growth and recovery.

Richard Holden: We shouldn’t try to win a spending arms race with Labour in this Budget – which we would lose anyway

1 Mar

Fight Fitness Guru, Consett, Co. Durham

During the last fortnight, the white wasteland of frozen fields has given way to the flora of spring in County Durham.  The thaw in the land of the Prince Bishops is being met with a broader feeling in the towns and villages that spring is on the way.  With 20,000,000 vaccinations done and accelerating, as well as the Prime Minister’s roadmap providing clarity for the future, there is a real feeling that the tide is turning.

This week’s Budget must be another step along that road.  However, with so many competing concerns it will be a difficult balance to strike.  To get it right, it’s going to be essential to zoom out and look to where we want to be in a few years’ time.

Our economy has taken a pounding because of Covid-19.  Three hundred billion pounds in extra spending and support, paying people’s wages through furlough and supporting jobs and businesses has been provided.

Three hundred billion pounds extra: that is wartime levels of additional expenditure. For context, it is more than twice the size of the NHS budget annually. It’s an extra £4,500 for every man woman and child in the UK, or about £12,000 for every income-taxpayer in extra spending: money that’s had to be borrowed.

The support has been colossal and necessary. It has protected businesses and jobs and crucially will enable our economy to bounce back as quickly as it can. But this backing wouldn’t have been possible if the Government hadn’t taken the necessary decisions to keep spending under control during the last few years.

Colloquially, this point is made frequently by my constituents, along the lines of: “I’m glad it was you lot in and not Labour. If they’d been in ,God knows what would have happened.”

Which takes me to the political.  One of the biggest gateways to so-called “Blue Wall” voters switching from Labour to Conservative was Jeremy Corbyn. But this wasn’t just because of the terrorist sympathising and antisemitism. Or Keir Starmer’s policy of betraying democracy over Brexit. It was also because of Labour’s economic credibility.

People stopped listening to Labour’s promises when they became increasingly outlandish.  Remember them? Free broadband for all, give WASPI women £30,000 each, cancel student debt and make university education taxpayer-funded. The list went on – all with no plan to pay for it: it was fantasy economics that lacked basic credibility.

This is where we Conservatives now need to be careful, and why Rishi Sunak needs to tread a fine line. We cannot, nor should we wish to, win an arms race with Labour over who can spend more taxpayers’ cash.

We’ve not spent the long, hard yards of the last decade, undoing the catastrophic position Labour left in 2010, to let that credibility go. The reason we’ve been able to support the country through the global pandemic is because we’d had credible spending plans for the last decade. The reason Labour couldn’t win in 2010 is because Labour believed its own hubris about having ‘abolished boom and bust’ and, to nab a much-loved phrase from George Osborne, “failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining.” And the result was the famous note from Liam Byrne, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury: “there is no money left.”

Given such an analysis of where we are, then: what’s next? The budget must focus on three things:

  • Recovery. Allowing the country, especially our hardest hit sectors to bounce back from Covid – and in doing so avoid a massive spike in unemployment.  This week, I led 68 Conservative backbenchers in writing to the Chancellor about support for pubs (massive employers of young people) via keeping beer duty down. It’s vital that he also allows our high streets breathing space regarding business rates. And for families in constituencies like mine, where for so many a car is essential, fuel duty rises, which Conservatives have found hard against for a decade, need to be avoided.
  • Delivery. Keep building towards our key manifesto commitments on public services: more police, more nurses, crucial infrastructure and deliver on the levelling up promise that was made.
  • Credibility. Long-term economic stability with borrowing under control to allow us to keep our debt – and crucially our debt interest payments – under control.  We can’t just hope that interest rates stay this low forever: they won’t. Only a balanced plan will allow the Government the space to deliver on the first two objectives of recovery and delivery.

It’s a tall order, and the Chancellor needs to be clear, honest, and fair in what he spells out. Those who’ve profited during the pandemic and those with the broadest shoulders should take the lion’s share of slack as we now deal with the consequences of it.

As for Keir “Goldilocks” Starmer – naturally, nothing will be ‘just right’.  But he won’t come up with any other real proposals, either. He’s opposed to anything that will raise revenue, but Labour MPs will doubtless demand more spending.  The party is all over the place, with a front bench hopelessly out of its depth, and a broader one so divided as to the way forward that it’s hardly a surprise Sir Keir is unable to get them to agree on anything but to abstain.

So Labour’s economic credibility will remain in tatters. We need ours to remain strong.

This spring in North West Durham and across the “blue wall”, let’s ensure that the growth we see is built to last. Unsustainable borrowing might be Labour’s answer, but it can’t be ours. Without doubt, at some point, winter will come again.

And when it does, we’ll need to respond to it from a position of strength with flexibility – as we have this time.  The electorate will not forgive us is we don’t ensure long-term credibility. Without it we put both a sustainable recovery from the global Coronavirus pandemic and delivery of our manifesto in jeopardy.

Perhaps the simplest way of putting it on the Budget is: it’s all about economic credibility, stupid. Because come 2024, it certainly will be.

David Gauke: My Budget advice to the Chancellor. Raise income tax, not corporation tax.

27 Feb

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.

If there is one tax that the Chancellor is likely to increase when he stands up to deliver his Budget on Wednesday, it is corporation tax. Speculation that the corporation tax rate is going to rise has been running for months and if the Treasury wanted to dispel such speculation it could have done so. In contrast to George Osborne’s time as Chancellor – when reductions from 28 per cent to 17 per cent were announced – Rishi Sunak is expected to announce a Corporation Tax rate in the region of 23 to 25 per cent.

Is this a good idea? My view – as the Minister of Tax throughout the Osborne Chancellorship – is that it is not. But it is worth examining the arguments for and against such an approach.

The first argument that will be made is that we might not need tax rises at all. I wish that this was true but sadly this is unrealistic. It is true to say that we can live with higher levels of debt than was the case in the past. Interest rates are low and likely to remain so. Even if they increase, the long dated maturity of our debt gives us a chance to respond. The markets are happy to lend to us, the risk of a sovereign debt crisis is remote. The Covid crisis is the type of event in which governments should be willing to borrow and the consequences can and should be dealt with over a long period of time. In short, we needn’t be in a hurry to pay off the Covid-19 debt.

Even accepting all of this – that ‘this time is different’ – there is still an issue. Even after we are put the economic consequences of Covid-19 behind us, the OBR forecasts a deficit of £100 billion or 4 per cent of GDP. Our debt to GDP ratio would continue growing. Given these forecasts assume tight control over public spending that will be hard to deliver and the significant demographic challenges that face the country in the 2030s, some kind of fiscal tightening in the form of tax rises will be necessary eventually.

The second argument is that now is not the time. I would agree that now is not the time for a fiscal tightening. The economy is currently shrinking and unemployment is likely to increase substantially in the months ahead. The markets are not jittery so there is less of a pressing need to take action. Nonetheless, the Government could increase some taxes without engaging in a fiscal tightening if long term tax increases are accompanied by short term tax cuts or spending rises. So one can announce and even implement tax rises without engaging in an immediate fiscal tightening.

There is also a political issue. Delaying action on fiscal consolidation might make economic sense but it would push tax increases into the last years of a Parliament. Leave it a year or so and the Chancellor might find that his Parliamentary colleagues – not least the Right Honourable Member for the marginal seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip – might become rather resistant. Now might be the last chance to take action.

The third unconvincing argument is that cutting corporation tax has not cost us any money and increasing it will not raise you any money. Look at how corporation tax revenues have increased since 2010, the argument goes. Sadly, life is more complicated than that. Yes, rates have fallen and revenue has increased but corporation tax receipts reflects where we are on the economic cycle (in 2010, businesses were not making much by way of profits and if they were they had big losses to offset). Furthermore, the post-2010 reforms were Lawsonian in their approach in broadening the base at the same time as lowering the rate (so these were not simply cuts). In addition, lower corporation tax rates have unintended behavioural changes in that more people pay themselves through companies (diverting tax revenues from income tax and national insurance contributions). To put it another way, increasing corporation tax rates really will bring in more revenue.

So, to summarise, it will be necessary to increase tax revenue, it is reasonable to make a careful start on that process now (albeit in a way that does not tighten fiscal policy in the short term) and that increasing the corporation tax rate will bring in additional revenue. I could also add that, of all the potential revenue-raisers, this is likely to be politically less painful than other options. Even businesses will not squeal much because, for many of them, making a profit appears to be a remote eventuality and paying more tax on those profits would be a relatively nice problem to have.

It would still be a bad idea.

Why? If we are going to raise more in taxes – and we are already at historically high levels – we need to have a debate about which taxes are least damaging to economic growth. Over the long term, corporation tax ranks as being one of the worst.

Corporation tax is a tax on profits. Profits are the return on investment; the higher the tax on profits, the lower the rate of return. All other things being equal, the lower the rate of return on investment, the less investment you get.

There is also a tendency to think that corporation tax is something that is paid by, well, corporations. At one level that is true but – to state the bleeding obvious – all taxes are paid by people in the end. Corporation tax is ultimately paid by shareholders in lower dividends, consumers in higher prices and employees in lower wages. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that in an open economy like the UK, it is the workers who lose out the most. Investment goes elsewhere, productivity does not increase as quickly as it would otherwise do and, in the end, wages and salaries reflect productivity.

It is no coincidence that, in the era of globalisation, corporation tax rates have fallen around the world. I spent much of my time as a Treasury minister trying to persuade international businesses to locate more investment and activity in the UK as a consequence of the competitiveness of our corporate tax system. We were starting to see success but there was always a question as to whether the UK was truly committed to corporation tax competitiveness in the way that, say, the Republic of Ireland was. Given the current speculation, it was a fair question. On top of Brexit, a sharp hike in corporation tax rates will be yet another blow to our international reputation as a place in which to do business.

If we need more tax revenue – and we do – we have to make use of our big, broad-based revenue raisers – income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT. The manifesto pledge made in 2019 not to increase the rates of these taxes was unwise at the time but it was made in good faith. However, much has happened since and the Government would be justified in recognising that. Attempting to fill the fiscal black hole by swingeing increases in corporation tax will reduce business investment and damage our international competitiveness. Not for the first time, the politically expedient choice will come with a painful economic cost.

Andy Street: I haven’t raised a mayoral tax during my term, and commit to not doing so if I’m re-elected

23 Feb

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.

As we await next week’s Budget from the Chancellor, here in the West Midlands we’ve just considered our own local financial plans for the next year. Approved by the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA), it is a budget of more than £900 million – funding infrastructure, regeneration and job training schemes that can support our post-Covid-19 recovery.

After such a difficult twelve months, and with significant challenges ahead, this year’s financial plan for the region stands out in terms of its ambition and breadth, delivering on my core commitments of new jobs, better transport and more homes.

But our plans aren’t just about big spending to kick-start the economy, they’re about public funds working hand-in-hand with private sector investment. This is about delivering investment into projects that are based on solid business cases.

In this column, I want to tell you about how we intend to spend that investment and also explain how, as Mayor, I believe it’s vital that I set a financial example to ask only for money when it is needed – and ensure it is used properly.

So what’s in the region’s budget? For a start, there is £142 million towards skills and training – to support people as they adapt to the new world we face and get high-quality, stable jobs in the industries of the future.

Despite the pandemic, we have already made a good start on the 20-year transport plan that I unveiled 12 months ago, and this budget includes a further £363 million towards delivering our ever-expanding Metro lines, reopened railway stations and better, greener buses.

Then there is ‘brownfield first’, our ground-breaking policy of reclaiming derelict industrial sites for development. Our budget includes £116 million towards maintaining our progress in making ‘brownfield first’ a reality, not a slogan – regenerating communities and easing the pressure on our Green Belt.

Plus, of course, millions have been allocated to other big regional investments we have secured, for a whole raft of projects that are generating jobs and sustaining livelihoods now – projects such as the Commonwealth Games, Coventry City of Culture, the rollout of 5G technology and many more.

All told, since becoming Mayor four years ago, we have brought in £3 billion of new Government funding, a figure rising every day, and topped up with millions more given to our councils, and supported by us as a regional body.

When the pandemic struck, the West Midlands economy was motoring, with record employment, record housebuilding and the strongest growth anywhere outside of London. Government support played a huge part in that success, but I believe that our ability as a region to put together compelling business cases has been crucial to winning that investment. Now, as we plot our recovery post-pandemic, this approach will be more important than ever.

It’s not surprising that I do things differently as Mayor, when you consider that I came to the role from a business background, rather than via the world of politics. My business experiences have certainly informed how I tackle the role, in terms of setting strategy, building a team, ensuring delivery and understanding that the UK’s regions are in a competitive race.

However, in financial terms, my 30 years at John Lewis have meant I build a budget based on business deals, not political decisions. Every penny we have brought into the region has been won through coherent business arguments, project by project, and working hard to make the case with Government.

Throughout my time as Mayor, I have worked with Ministers to secure the funding we need from across Government. I haven’t done this through megaphone diplomacy, or seeking out TV cameras to make demands, but through approaching each project as a business deal – and making sure we land as many as possible. Naturally, this approach also knits well with the business world, leading to big private sector investments which drive our economy forward.

There could have been another way. When it was established in 2017, the office of the Mayor was given considerable powers – powers I have often argued should be extended, for example to decentralise decision-making from London, or to give regions more ability to direct how money is spent locally.

However, there is one significant area where I have not used the powers on offer to me. During my time in office, I have not used the ability available to the Mayor to introduce a precept – an additional Mayoral tax.

In the last four years I have never used this power to tax the people of the West Midlands and, where we have borrowed, it has been to push forward projects – and never at a rate which means citizens end up with a precept.

Our model of retaining local business rates has also helped balance the books, by ensuring we benefit from the fruits of our strong economic growth, paying in part for the work of the WMCA.

I could have got our region into heavy debt to make my transport plan happen, or raised extra taxes to press ahead with Brownfield First. As a person with a business background, and someone who believes good housekeeping, this hasn’t been my way. Areas served by Labour mayors levy a precept. This has not happened here.

As households across the region face the hardships caused by Coronavirus, I’m proud to say that this year we have once again balanced our books and delivered a budget that hasn’t cost local people a penny in extra tax from their Mayor.

It is an approach I want to continue. After four years of no extra tax due to the Mayor’s office, I am planning to do the same again if I am fortunate enough to continue in this job – that’s zero tax again for another three years. I do not intend to introduce a precept.

I consider it a great privilege to be the Mayor of the region where I grew up, the place that made me what I am. I passionately believe that the office of Mayor should exist to the benefit of local people, not to their cost. By continuing to approach this job in a business-like way, I am confident I can continue to bring real money into their region, without taking it out of their pockets.

Sammy Wilson: The Northern Ireland Protocol needs to be replaced, not repaired

8 Feb

Sammy Wilson is the Democratic Unionist MP for East Antrim, and is Director of the Centre for Brexit Policy.

As the full implications of the Northern Ireland protocol begin to be manifested, it is clear that this arrangement, which was designed solely to protect the EU’s Single Market, has destroyed the UK’s internal market.

It is damaging Northern Ireland businesses, denies tens of thousands of Northern Ireland consumers the ability to purchase all manner of goods from suppliers in Great Britain, has resulted in the rigorous applications of petty EU rules, and has caused tensions which threaten to spill over into violence on Northern Ireland’s streets.

All of this was totally predictable. The Nothern Ireland protocol contains 70 pages of lists of EU directives and regulations which have to apply to Northern Ireland.  These rules require customs declarations are for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and cover everything from container loads of food destined for supermarkets to items worth a few pounds ordered over the internet from Amazon for personal use. Health inspections, certificates and border checks have added to time delays and increased costs.

Petty rule enforcement means that goods carried on wooden pallets which don’t meet EU standards, but that are perfectly safe and legal across the UK, are being turned away. Machinery being brought into Northern Ireland from Great Britain is refused entry if there is any soil residue on it. Indeed, since January 1st, British soil is now deemed  a danger to the safety of EU horticulture and therefore plants cannot be brought into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in case Northern Ireland becomes the Ho Chi Minh trail for infiltrating the EU market with horticulture devastation.

And all of this is occurring while we are still in the period of grace – whereby the most damaging requirements of the Protocol are not being enforced. So the potential for further economic damage and constitutional destruction hasn’t even begun to be felt. Under the protocol, Northern Ireland is required to follow thousands of EU rules from the past, and all future EU Single Market rules – into which no one in Northern Ireland will have any input. Adherence will be enforceable through the European Court of Justice.

Despite the clear damage that the Protocol is doing and will do to the Northern Ireland economy, and the place of Northern Ireland within the UK, there are those who demand its full implementation because it is an internationally legally binding  agreement.

Of course, the EU has now shown that it don’t see the Protocol in that way. In order to escape the wrath of citizens across the EU who are angry at the bungling ineptitude of the EU commission over the purchase and distribution of Covid vaccines, the EU was prepared to scrap the most important objective of the Protocol, and set up checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The fact that it swiftly withdrew this proposal after outrage was expressed by the Irish government is neither here nor there. They didn’t even apologise – and have reserved the right to do the same again if they believe it is necessary.

Now is the time to replace this discredited agreement. The answer is not further grace periods as Michael Gove has suggested: after all, the damage being done at present is occurring during a grace period. The answer is not to beg the EU for some minor derogations. A workable alternative is needed.

The Mutual Enforcement proposal put forward by the Centre for Brexit Policy meets the EU demand for protection of its Single Market while protecting Northern Ireland from having to be included in that market – thus avoiding the constitutional and economic damage which this does.

Put simply Northern Ireland firms exporting into the EU would be required to meet all EU standards and pay any EU taxes on the goods which they export. The export declarations which they make would have to show that they were doing so, and would be confirmed by regulatory bodies in Northern Ireland.

Ann exporters that do not comply can then be pursued on both sides of the border. The same arrangements would be in place in the Republic of Ireland. There is no need for border posts, which can be easily avoided anyway. A mutual enforcement structure implies constant enforcement on both sides of the border, so the EU would benefit from the protection of the UK enforcement authorities as well as its own.

The solution is not to tinker with this flawed and ruinous agreement. Instead, it needs replacing with a workable alternative.

The cynical politics of emissions targets and COP26. How government is poised to declare success while delivering failure.

25 Jan

Dissenters can go figure.  Yes, China is still stacking up new coal plants.  But it is also the world’s largest invester in renewables.  Meanwhile, America was pouring record amounts into them – even under Donald Trump.

Those on the right who don’t believe in man-made climate change can protest as loudly as they like about this shift in the zeitgeist.  Their own capitalist system is turning its back on them.

BP’s plan to increase its renewables twenty-fold, cut oil and gas production by 40 per cent, and not to enter new countries to explore for either is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg.

Slumps, black swans and wars could slow the pace of change.  But the direction of travel is unmissable.  Fossil fuels are out – at least as traditionally used – and renewables are in.  The rejectionists might as well seek to shout down a hurricane.

In many ways, this is all to the good.  Energy security demands decreasing our reliance on, say, Russian coal.  Emissions reduction suggests not looking to our own for a replacement.

We have no quarrel with “the science”: as Roger Scruton pointed out, “the greenhouse effect has been known for over a century and a half”. But giving the shift to renewables a thumbs-up in principle is not necessarily the same as doing so in practice – that’s to say, when a plan is on the table.

The Government has a series of targets for reducing emissions.  Two of the best-known are the ban on the sale of new diesel, petrol and hybrid cars, and the zero emissions 2050 target, rushed in by Theresa May as a legacy policy.

We want to look at these targets, and the pace of change which they suggest, through three lenses: those of people, politics and Parliament. First, people.  Our columnist James Frayne writes on this site that he “has probably done more work on the environment than any other single issue”.

He finds a class and age divergence among support for environmental policies.  They’re important to everyone, more so to younger, urban voters – and in different ways.

To many of those people, Greta Thurnberg is a hero.  Lots of those older, provincial ones have never heard of her.  Their concerns are concrete, not abstract: “excessive use of plastics, the destruction of areas of natural beauty and animal welfare.”

Yes, there’s an overlap.  But how will they react when or if governments tax their hybrid cars, bar the coal they use for their fires, hike their electricity bills, export their jobs and ban them from eating meat?

Cambridge University is blazing a trail for that last policy – a reminder that urban, younger people are concentrated in Planet Remain, and provincial, older ones in Leave Country.  Welcome to the latest version of culture wars.

Now, it’s true that voter protest so far has been muted.  Which brings us to our second p: politics.  Britain’s democracy is geared up to a five-year election cycle.

It is built into the very stuff of Parliament, therefore, for MPs to fixate on the date of the next election (due in this case to be May 2 2024) – and often to look no further.

To make a complex story simple, green technologies mean subsidies, subsidies mean jobs, and MPs want those jobs for their constituents.  Who can blame them?

Hence the rush of articles on this site, more numerous by our count than on any other subject, from backbench MPs making the case for green technologies that will mean “green jobs” in their seats.

What about the bills?  They will mostly arrive on the doortsteps of taxpayers, consumers and business in the medium-run, if not the long-run.  And “in the long run we are all dead,” as Keynes put it.

So, third, to Parliament.  We quoted Scruton earlier on the known factor of the greenhouse effect.  But withheld until now the context of the quote.

The greenhouse effect “implies that, other things being equal, the accelerating production of carbon dioxide will cause the earth to warm”, he added, before briefly citing one of those other things: “fluctuations in solar energy”, he added.

There is more detail in his book Green Philosophy, but one would have thought that this position (the greenhouse effect is a cause of global warming – even the main cause, but not the only cause), would be shared by some on the Conservative benches.

Even if not, one would certainly have imagined that, by now, a band of Tory MPs would be pointing out that the bills for this green programme will come in sooner or later – at which point, a choice may open up between mulcting the taxpayer or losing those jobs.

Perhaps we are not reading Hansard closely enough, but we can find no evidence that such a group exists.  That suggests a new dimension to change in the Commons.

It’s often said that modern MPs are increasingly rebellious (not least by this site).  But they are so in a particular kind of way.  More stand ready to put the interests of their constituents ahead of the blandishments of the whips.

But the Commons seems to be producing fewer Andrew Tyries – the awkward, angular former Treasury Select Committee Chairman, now a peer, who campaigned against climate change orthodoxy, for all his establishment status.

At any rate, climate change sceptics outside Parliament warn of terrible things to come – higher electricity bills, for example.  We take the point, but query the scale – because we suspect that rebellion will finally come when the proverbial hits the fan.

To put it plainly, try telling Robert Halfon that his Harlow constituents must pay higher fuel duty to help meet some government target.  He will revolt.  As will all those other backbenchers who have no ideological or constituency stake in the push for zero emissions.

Maybe government will manage the transition, after all.  But with COP26 coming down the tracks, and with a mass of coporates, lobbyists and cheerleaders clinging to its wagons and rooftop, this is a good moment to take stock.

Reducing emissions and securing supply are only two of a quartet of main policy objectives, the other two being keeping the lights on and keeping prices low.  Remember: the Tory manifesto promised to lower energy bills for those in social housing.

How can these objectives be squared?  Finding an answer doesn’t require a drive-by shooting of green policies.  In some cases, we need more. For example, Rachel Wolf and others have made a strong case for a carbon tax, which is robust regardless of targets.

Nor are these wrong in themselves.  For example, it would make sense to have a timetable for the take-up of Flood Performance Certificates – documents that set out the severity of flood risk for homes, and steps that could be taken to mitigate it.

And there are worse things in the world than politicians declaring success (“we’ve made great progress towards our zero emissions target”) while delivering failure (i.e: backing off some of the tax hikes necessary to actually hit them).

But the landscape ahead looks to be one of conflicting policy objectives, punts in new technologies that won’t always come off, pressure on consumers, business and taxpayers, jobs that won’t always be sustaintable – and further damage to the standing of politics.

In which case, a small boy ought to halt the wheezing emperor of government policy, and point out not that he has no clothes, but that he is overdressed amidst this warming weather.  And would move more lightly were he to cast off the 2050 target.

ConservativeHome will run a mini-series on climate change policy tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday.