Benet Northcote

It’s time to reframe the debate.

Shaun Spiers and James Murray (and other excellent points in the comments) discuss an important question. How do we ensure that the vitally important issue of environmental breakdown is not ignored by our politicians, the media and the public?

It sometimes feels we are like Churchill in the 1930s: a lonely voice warning about the dangers of fascism, going largely unheeded, while the world moved inexorably to precisely the outcome he was warning about.

And the problems that will delay action are growing, not least a perverted economic analysis that encourages ethno-nationalism, or the very real, immediate threats of war.

We know the public care about environmental issues, but must also recognise that they care about other issues too, and often these are deemed more important. Polling tells us that Reform voters are not opposed to climate action, they just think immigration is more important.

This chimes with my experience looking at brands and sustainability claims. Customers shop on price and quality first, then they think about other values like sustainability. Sustainability can be a differentiator for all customers, across all demographics, but only after the other criteria have been met.

We have to reset our strategy with this reality in mind.

So, if we want to have planning that keeps our rivers clear, we must put forward an analysis and argument as to why the current system isn’t working (alongside the problems with the Planning and Infrastructure Act).

If there are 1.2 million homes with planning permission that are unbuilt, as we are always being told, we need to know why not, and what needs to change to get them built. How do we make housing affordable? Now we are talking about planning, and not the environment.

How do we pay for the defence investment we need, which can also generate spill over opportunities for the wider economy, including the energy transition. Now we are talking about wars in Ukraine and Iran.

We know that we need to controls costs for infrastructure, which includes labour costs and supply chain constraints. Now we are talking about industrial policy, reliance on China, prices and, yes, immigration.

Start with the voter in mind. Talk about the issues that matter to them. And then present our solutions that meet the price/quality/sustainability hierarchy.

This approach, I reckon, will also drag the Overton window towards our shared values and concerns.

It’s time to reframe the debate.

Forget about making the NHS sustainable.

Rather, how to do you solve NHS waiting times, with the right quality of care, sustainably?

Riddle me that, NGO friends…