PARTIES AND MOVEMENTS
country (King 2001 : 270–3), and even when asked to identify several issues
of importance, the environment is still mentioned by under 10 per cent of
respondents (MORI 2005 ). With no sizeable environmental ‘issue public’ –
people who include environmental considerations in their personal voting
calculus – it is not surprising that environmental considerations have never
been significant in a British general election.
Consequently, the Labour and Conservative parties have pursued a strat-
egy of preference-accommodation. They have gradually adopted a greener
rhetoric and developed a set of moderate policies to demonstrate that the
environment would be safe in their hands, but they have resisted turning
theenvironment into an arena of party competition.^5 One outcome of this
strategy is that the environment in Britain is not generally perceived in
party political terms or closely associated with either the ‘Left’ or the ‘Right’.
This situation is reinforced by the strong environmental lobby, which has
scrupulously maintained a non-partisan approach, reasoning that an insider
strategy will be most successful in the British political system if it can secure
cross-party support. Despite the efforts of the Liberal Democrats to present
themselves as environmental champions, none of the established parties
is regarded as significantly greener than its rivals by the British electorate
(Carter 2006 :760–1). To the extent that the public does associate one party
with the environment, that party is the Greens. So if Labour or Conser-
vative Party strategists try to compete on the environment, any electoral
rewards arising from an increased political salience for the environment
might simply accrue to the Green Party. Thelogic of electoral competitionsug-
gests, therefore, that as long as the Green Party remains insignificant, there
is little incentive for either Labour or the Conservatives to raise the profile
of the environment.
Party competition also explains the more positive response of the Liberal
Democrats because they seem most vulnerable to the Greens, as illustrated
by the 1989 European election when many of their supporters switched loy-
alties (Rootes1995c). The Liberal Democrats also seem most at ease with
the environment; indeed, Webb ( 2000 :106) identifies environmentalism as
adefining feature of their ideology. However, their commitment to the
environment is qualified. Where political capital can be gained the Liberal
Democrats are quite willing to oppose progressive environmental initiatives:
for example, they campaigned stronglyagainstaproposedtrafficconges-
tion charge in Edinburgh in 2005 and they have opposed several wind farm
proposals.
There are further ideological and political obstacles impeding the ‘green-
ing’ of the major parties. Significantly, the Liberal Democrats have been
historically free of the producerist interests – industrialists, farmers, trade
unions – whose influence have made the Conservative and Labour parties
ideologically less receptive to environmental ideas and encouraged them
toremain committed to policies and spending plans that are dependent
on continued economic growth (Carter 1992 ;Robinson 1992 ). Successive