Views on the General Election

“Send them back to where they came from”, was Nigel Farage’s characteristically obtuse answer to the question of what to do about the obscene numbers of migrants (1,600 so far this year) drowning in the Mediterranean in a desperate effort at bridging the gulf between lands fraught and stable.  And yet the EU leaders, having convened on the crisis have, it seems, scarcely anything of more constructive worth to add.

As they flee from a region the West had a direct hand in destabilising, we are now hamstrung by the deficit of public and political will, with immigration already so volatile an issue, to provide a meaningful and effective response.  But the plight of these migrants, as well as our national response, is both illustrative of the waves of animosity swelling across Europe and in South Africa, and a stark prophesy of what the near future might hold.

As major environmental catastrophes become ever more frequent in occurrence and devastating in impact, desperate migrants seeking the safety of securer shores will quite clearly face an increasingly hostile and defensive reception.  As today so with the impacts of climate change, less developed nations will suffer the consequences first and receive scant amelioration from the nations with the most responsibility for generating them.

Perhaps typically, UKIP surpass the other main parties with bizarre thinking that borders on the territory of climate denial, such as manifesto pledges to scrap the Department of Energy and Climate Change as well as green subsidies.  This can surely only mean that burying our heads in nationalism and pints of ale whilst doing nothing would result in even more uncontrollable numbers of refugees looking to seek asylum in Britain once the inevitable deluge in their homelands starts to manifest itself in environmental destruction.

Of course, UKIP’s once solid momentum is now a fast-melting ice floe, and it is the two main parties who must address these issues much more meaningfully.  Alas they have abjectly failed to do so during this election campaign.  From promoting his government prior to election as looking to be ‘the greenest ever’, Cameron now says next to nothing about environmental issues, and neither does Miliband.

Despite their differing political stances, both are firmly committed to programmes that do nothing to safeguard against climate change and instead pursue the precise means of exacerbating the problems through relying on the markets to foster ‘growth’ and ‘sustainability’.  The marketisation of public life and financial system are chronically short-termist by nature, looking for quick investments and fast rates of return that then engender a climate of low risk and a deficit of innovation on the part of businesses who play it safe by sticking to tried-and-tested formulas.  This short-term business mindset, instilled over decades, is entirely at odds with the need to cut carbon emissions and dam the river flowing towards environmental disaster.   

As Naomi Klein has written in ‘This Changes Everything’, the debate should no longer be steeped in the tired and failed dogmatism of left and right wing that younger generations feel negligible kinship or identity with, but should instead be focused on ensuring the future stability of human life on earth.  The earth, when all is said and done, will be fine, and in my darker days I often postulate that perhaps the human race would be wiser to leave the stage sooner rather than later and let the planet carry on the show without us glorying in the limelight.

I am sceptical that the human race, having brought this threat upon ourselves, can alter its behaviour radically enough to solve it.  That said, ignoring the issue only plays into the hands of the rich and powerful elites.  These are the people who for decades have profited from environmental destruction in the name of entrepreneurial endeavour, economic efficiency and profit margins, and who plan on continuing in such a vein unless they are stopped.  (Last year I attended the World Petroleum Congress in Moscow and witnessed first-hand the phenomenal spectacle of the industry examining its own muscles in front of the mirror like an oiled-up bodybuilder.  It was clear to me at least that these organisations have far too much to lose and will not concede defeat without an almighty battle.)

This is why the Green Party will be getting my support in the May General Election.  A party that seeks to involve more women at a higher level, vehemently opposes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), seeks to redress the chronic imbalance that has opened up between rich and poor in this country, and one that adopts the principle that the professionally enclosed economic system with their elaborate models and statistical instruments should no longer be the sole marker for denoting a country’s well-being.

I’m convinced that far from being a wasted vote, this is a rebuke to the main parties, giving them cause in the future to take environmental issues more seriously instead of remaining mired in short-termism, adhering to the principles of ‘disaster capitalism’ (as we saw in the kneejerk reaction to the flooding crisis last year that was promptly forgotten about), and pandering to the UKIP vote that aims to crystallise an instinctual resentment against migrants that will only take on more pernicious shades as natural events transpire.