Whatever Happened to Leadership?

I was interested to hear Baroness Warsi's views regarding the Equalities Bill last Tuesday. I will return to the subject of Equalities & Inclusion at a later date, as I have much to say about the matter.

This blog post is about political leadership. It is not leadership in the sense of managing employees or a business project; this kind is all too common in our working lives. The leadership about which I write is a rarer quantity.

Throughout history, there have been defining moments where mankind had found itself at a crossroads. The choices that we made determined the course of our moral future; the values that we live by, the nature of our democratic institutions and the way we relate to one another. Faced with injustices of such magnitude, it took extraordinary acts of leadership and self-sacrifice to take the road we knew was right. These moments are well documented, often standing alone against the prevailing tide of public opinion. Today we arrive at  another crossroads. Man-made climate change is no less a defining moment in the history of our species.

It has always had its doubters, but public confidence in the issue of climate change is at an all time low. Rumours of bogus emails and falsified evidence have done little to change this view. I lack the expertise to argue the scientific debate with any real credibility, yet it seems very probable that our climate is changing. Besides, it shouldn't matter what people like me think is true. There are far more informed people advising the Government on this issue than us. Take another scenario such as deciding whether the country goes to war. Should the public be able to dictate this? We don't receive the intelligence or security briefings necessary to make the decision. For the same reasons, if governments believe that climate change exists and that it represents a clear and present danger, then they should take the necessary action to combat it.   

Instead we get what Baroness Warsi  has called ‘window dressing’, a phrase she used to criticise the Equalities Bill in its current format. There has been much rhetoric flying around in Parliament about reducing the effects of climate change and which was subsequently hyped up in the media. Do you remember Kyoto or the Copenhagen Summit? The world was full of expectations. One would believe from the build up to these events, that our political leaders had finally taken action to match the occasion. Instead we got watered down targets to cut CO2 emissions without legal bindings. What followed were Governments implementing "green" initiatives such as Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) and the farming of biofuel crops which are equally harmful to our environments. There are in the UK subsidies for electrical cars such as lower vehicle tax and exceptions to congestion charges. Are we supposed to be fooled into thinking that electricity is not produced by burning the very minerals we are trying to reduce? These initiatives seem designed to give the appearance that Governments are meeting targets and international obligations instead of actually "taking the problem by the scruff of the neck" and dealing with it properly.   

Furthermore, on matters of such importance, should Parliament's allow itself to be influenced by public opinion polls and lobbyists? Arguably, the best result would come if Parliament could take a broader view of the subject and allow the Government to implement the required solutions without it being voted out of office. In truth, the issue is so vast, the timing perhaps so critical and the threat to our survival so grave, that the only way to force change, would be impose emergency powers similar to the draconian security measures taken post 9/11. I very much hope that it doesn't come to that. Either way, the initiatives and legislation that may be necessary, could prove unpopular and politically self-defeating. Yet at this environmental crossroads, should politicians now fail to exercise that rare form of leadership? Perhaps we voters should all agree that the right thing is not always what wins elections.

Consider the following:

If we were serious about tackling climate change we would limit the amount of hydrocarbon based vehicles per household, with a clear deadline of abolishing them all together.

If we were serious, we would look beyond LPG and electrical cars (unless wind turbines can produce enough power) and subsidise hydrogen cars which emit only water.

If we were serious, building contractors should be made to include better insulation and power generation (such as solar panels) when designing new houses.

If we were serious, we would set aside a budget for alternative energy research in the same way we do with defence and medicine.

If we were serious, what would you do?