In July 2023, the narrow (but unexpected) hold by the Conservatives at the Uxbridge by-election was widely interpreted as a protest vote against the expansion of the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), although data on public opinion on clean air zones paints a mixed picture.
It sparked a chain reaction culminating in Rishi Sunak’s announcement in September 2023 that some key net zero targets were to be watered down, on the basis that anti-net-zero sentiment could win votes for the Conservatives and increase their standing in the polls. But the immediate political capital for the Conservatives was limited, with voters who were planning to switch away from the party at the next election saying in polling that they backed net zero. Surveys consistently show that voters expect the government to do more (not less) on climate.
The Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire by-elections held in October 2023 delivered enormous swings away from the Conservatives. If the Uxbridge result was a referendum on ULEZ, could these be interpreted as a rejection of Sunak’s rhetorical turn against net zero?
Realistically, the answer to both is likely to be ‘no’: Uxbridge was not the start of a culture war on climate (however much a small but prolific band of columnists sought to portray it as such). And October’s by-elections can’t be read as a ringing endorsement of climate policies across the board, not least because there is a lot of variation in levels of support for the disparate policies that fall under the ‘net zero’ umbrella. Recent research by Onward and Publish First with Conservative voters included a ‘league table’ showing the variation in levels of current support.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t important learnings to take away from the by-elections.
The Uxbridge lesson was not that there is deep opposition to green policies across the board. Research is clear that voters for all parties care about climate change, and want the government to do more not less to tackle it. The lesson was that voter engagement around policies that are seen as impacting people’s behaviours and finances needs to be taken much more seriously, if those policies are to be seen as fair.
Recent data from polling specialist Steve Akehurst directly tested how voters responded to Sunak’s policy announcements, assessing changes in favourability towards Sunak and the Conservative Party after reading a short BBC report detailing the changes to net zero policies. Among target Conservative voters (defined as the over 45s and ‘non-graduates’) there wasn’t much movement – in short, it didn’t seem to make much of an impression. The only meaningful changes were among voters more likely to vote Labour, who became even less favourable towards the government..
Polling by Public First backs up the idea that a turn against net zero may not deliver much in the way of political capital. Testing different combinations of policy propositions with voters (on the environment and wider topics), they found that green investment is one of the most universally popular offers across the electorate (whichever party is offering it). While anti-net-zero sentiment didn’t move the dial much for those who support it, for those who oppose it, it’s a real vote loser:
“There is an asymmetry on environmental policies. Those inclined to oppose an anti-Net Zero policy swing heavily against a party if it stands on anti-Net Zero policy, while those who support anti-Net Zero policy do not swing as heavily in favour of it.”
But if Uxbridge wasn’t a rejection of green policies across the board, then neither can October’s by-elections be read as an unconditional thumbs up.
People have real concerns and questions on different aspects of net zero policies, and are likely to hesitate around any policy that is presented as adding costs to household budgets during a period when these are so squeezed, even if they support them in principle.
Importantly, this is not an opposition to the policies themselves, but the conditions under which they’re currently being offered. The questions voters have need to be taken seriously by campaigners and politicians.
For most people, recent debates around the 2030/2035 targets for phasing out gas boilers and petrol/diesel cars are likely to be the most they have heard and thought about them – although polling by Ipsos suggests by no means ‘everyone’ is paying attention (around half of the population had heard at least a little about the proposed changes).
A proper conversation with the public about what the transition involves is long overdue – talking with communities and constituencies about how and why changes are underway, and what this means for people’s daily lives – rather than focusing on dates that may seem arbitrary and terms that are poorly understood, like ‘net zero’.
There are some genuine differences in opinion and these are important to understand. Conservative voters are less persuaded by the phase out of gas boilers and petrol/diesel cars than Labour voters, whatever date is attached to it.
But it’s a stretch to describe opinion as polarised – there isn’t a pitched battle between two camps who despise each other, grounded in incompatible identities or worldviews. The same polls that show political differences also show more people in the middle than the extremes.
Trust & influence: Beyond ‘trusted messengers’
Trust is the currency in which all communicators trade – and currently, its in short supply. Against this backdrop, do climate campaigns stand a chance?