tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/caroline-lucas-15441/articlesCaroline Lucas – The Conversation2023-06-08T14:15:02Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2073382023-06-08T14:15:02Z2023-06-08T14:15:02ZCaroline Lucas and the heavy burden of being a party’s only member of parliament<p>Green MP Caroline Lucas’s <a href="https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1666675402775883778/photo/1">announcement</a> that she will be leaving parliament at the next general election will have come as a surprise to many. Elected in 2010 as the party’s first ever MP, overturning a pretty thumping Labour majority, she has become something of a force to be reckoned with in Westminster.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1666675402775883778"}"></div></p>
<p>From the minute she stepped foot in the House of Commons, Lucas was aware that her position as the sole member of a political party made parliamentary life more difficult to navigate. Party is everything in the House of Commons. It determines how often you get to speak and, most importantly, how much information you get about what will be happening and when. The government controls most of the parliamentary timetable, deciding what business is to be debated each day and ultimately, when votes will happen. Lucas even <a href="https://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/honourable-friends-parliament-and-the-fight-for-change">wrote a book</a> on her experiences as the Green’s only MP, highlighting the absence of any “honourable friends” in Westminster to guide her.</p>
<p>It would be wrong to say that these pressures have made her an unsuccessful MP. In fact, quite the opposite. Lucas is probably the best example of how a sole MP should operate in the Commons. She punches well above her weight as Green MP, asking <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/3930/writtenquestions">nearly 4,000 written questions</a> to government ministers since 2010, with an impressive number of <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/3930/contributions">spoken contributions</a> to boot, including a significant number of questions to the prime minister.</p>
<p>In recent years, House of Commons speakers have been much more explicit in recognising the position of smaller party MPs in the House of Commons chamber, ensuring that Lucas (along with Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and others) are all called to speak in important debates. This has helped to ensure a guaranteed platform for her and her party during the big debates on Brexit and its fallout, as well as the COVID pandemic.</p>
<p>In her resignation letter, Lucas talked about the “particular responsibilities” of being the Greens’ only MP and the impact this has had on her ability to do the job she wants to do as an MP. </p>
<p>Every MP wears two hats – as constituency MP and as parliamentarian. And there is a tension in the parliamentary role of a sole party MP that is absent for the average Labour or Conservative Party backbencher. For they essentially wear a third hat – they are the only voice of their entire political party in the House of Commons. </p>
<p>There is another added weight in the knowledge that they are not just a constituency MP but the only available representative in parliament for everyone who voted for their party. Lucas recognised this in her <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/archive/articles-and-speeches/27-05-2010-caroline-lucas-maiden-parliamentary-speech.html">first speech in the House of Commons</a>. She is not just the voice of her constituents in Brighton Pavilion, she is the voice of the 835,000 people who voted Green in the 2019 general election.</p>
<p>In this way, sole party MPs occupy a unique space. They must serve as both backbench and frontbench members of their party, essentially shadowing every single government department. </p>
<p>In practice this means a great deal more pressure on their time. If a minister attends the House of Commons for questions or to give a statement, if there is a debate on an important piece of legislation or a topic of much importance, they will need to be present in order to be their party’s voice. </p>
<p>Other small parties have the same dilemma. Plaid Cymru’s Ben Lake, for instance, is shadowing <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/4630/contact">no fewer than seven government departments</a> at the moment. It’s hard work and it requires a good support team in Parliament. For this, parties are dependent on <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/short-money/">Short money</a> – public funding for the opposition that depends on party performance in elections. Where this has been insufficient, Lucas has been <a href="https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-fund-caroline-lucas-in-parliament">assiduous in crowdfunding</a> in order to maintain a support team and “skewer ministers” with parliamentary questions.</p>
<h2>Stretched too thin</h2>
<p>The need to be the entire parliamentary face of the party makes it difficult to specialise and to carve out the time needed to focus on policy priorities. It is this that seems to have been the rub for Lucas. Those looking on might find this hard to believe as her work on climate and environmental issues is very prominent. She’s been a member of the Environmental Audit Committee for almost her entire time in the House of Commons and is chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change. This is on top of her regular interventions. But she clearly wants to do more.</p>
<p>More often than not, opposition parties are on the back foot, responding to the parliamentary agenda set by the government rather than being able to shape it. It can be frustrating to be in this position. </p>
<p>Lucas has always been keen to get out of the Westminster bubble and be on the frontline of the campaigns she is passionate about. Her <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/19/caroline-lucas-arrest-balcombe-anti-fracking">arrest</a> while joining anti-fracking campaigners at the Balcombe oil drilling site in 2013 is often raised as an example. </p>
<p>We could also point to a time shortly after her election back in 2010 when she interrupted a parliamentary debate on the <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/">fixed-term parliaments bill</a> to voice her disgust at what she had seen while joining tuition fee protesters down the road from parliament. Having seen first-hand the unnecessary kettling of students and schoolchildren she demanded that the home secretary <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2010-11-24/debates/10112451000002/details#contribution-10112468000661">come to the House of Commons</a> to make a statement.</p>
<p>Any green MP elected in place of Lucas will also need to navigate these tensions. If, however, we see a few more Green MPs elected then the job could become slightly easier. And with <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2023/05/05/greens-make-record-gains-in-historic-local-election-results/#:%7E:text=5%2520May%25202023&text=The%2520Greens%2520are%2520celebrating%2520a,in%2520the%2520UK%2520%252D%2520and%2520Europe.">record results</a> in this year’s local elections, that looks like a greater possibility than it has been before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council </span></em></p>As the only Green parliamentarian, Lucas has served as a constituency MP but also as a representative of the hundreds of thousands of other people who vote for her party.Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786432017-06-06T08:52:50Z2017-06-06T08:52:50ZDrowned out by the Corbyn effect, the Green Party struggles to cut through<p>The 2017 election could have been a serious opening for the Greens. The party fought the last election on a strong anti-austerity and redistributionist platform to the left of the Labour party, and established itself as a credible (if small) electoral force: its membership <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/21/green-surge-party-that-will-decide-election">swelled to 75,000</a>, the party quadrupled its 2010 vote count to 1.2m, kept a record 131 deposits, came second in four seats, and saw Caroline Lucas re-elected as its sole MP.</p>
<p>It seemed the stage was set for a bright Green future. But things have changed – and not for the better. Labour’s post-2015 shift to the left under Jeremy Corbyn and his personal popularity among young voters seems to have directly eaten into the Greens’ support. Far from building on their hard-won gains, <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/">polls suggest</a> that while Lucas is expected to hold her seat in Brighton Pavilion, the party may do significantly worse this time. </p>
<p>This is not for want of trying. The Greens made several strategic adjustments to prepare for the next election. Most conspicuously, they returned to their old <a href="https://theconversation.com/caroline-lucas-and-jonathan-bartley-share-green-party-leadership-and-an-eye-for-a-fruitful-alliance-64654">shared leadership structure</a>, meaning Lucas – the party’s most prominent and effective media performer – could be freed up to be the face of the party while <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/people/leaders-of-green-party.html">Jonathan Bartley</a> played a lower-profile supporting role. This tactic has proved effective in the campaign. Lucas was widely judged a success in the televised leadership debates, and has consistently performed well in her other media appearances. But British elections and campaigns are tough for small parties, and when <a href="http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/independent-sunday-mirror-june-2017-voting-intention-and-political-poll/">ComRes asked respondents their opinion of her</a> just before the election, 62% had no opinion. Just 15% rated her favourably, against 23% unfavourably.</p>
<p>Strategically, the Greens have <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/progressive-alliance-election-2017-tories-worried-say-campaigners-a7737021.html">enthusiastically promoted</a> the idea of a “progressive alliance”. They <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2017/05/13/greens-announce-final-candidate-numbers/">unilaterally announced</a> they would not stand against at least 22 “progressive” candidates, meaning they’re running more than 100 fewer candidates than they did in 2015. But Labour did not reciprocate, even though the Greens’ gesture might well benefit many of its own candidates in marginal constituencies. The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, were only prepared to stand aside for the Greens in Lucas’s south coast bailiwick – declining to help actually add any seats to the party’s tally. </p>
<h2>True colours</h2>
<p>In response to the rise of the “Corbyn effect”, the Greens’ <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/green-guarantee/">2017 manifesto</a> departs radically from <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf">the one they published in 2015</a>, an uncompromising 86-page tome of left-wing “tax-and-spend” proposals. This year the manifesto runs to a more digestible 26 pages; although it still includes a tranche of egalitarian, redistributionist proposals, it mostly sticks to more traditional territory by emphasising environmental and energy policies, democratic reforms and policies aimed at younger voters. </p>
<p>The Greens clearly see environmental policy as a chance to differentiate themselves from Labour. Despite <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf">promises</a> to ban fracking, introduce a Clean Air Act and ensure that 60% of energy comes from zero-carbon or renewable sources by 2030, the Labour manifesto says very little about the environment, and makes far fewer pledges than the Greens.</p>
<p>But there’s stiffer competition elsewhere. The Liberal Democrats’ <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/348615937/Liberal-Democrat-Manifesto-2017-Change-Britain-s-Future#from_embed">manifesto</a> is almost as ambitious as the Greens’ on environmental issues, with a long shopping list of promises: a target of zero new greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a diesel scrappage scheme, and a significant re-balancing of farming subsidies towards environmental stewardship. </p>
<p>Still, the Greens really do own the environment as a policy issue: <a href="http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-30th-may-2017/">one recent poll</a> reports 51% of respondents identifying the Greens as the party best able to address environmental issues, far ahead of Labour (19%), the Liberal Democrats (9%) and the Conservatives (5%). The problem is that the environment just isn’t top of voters’ lists.</p>
<h2>Overlooked</h2>
<p>Despite the threat of Brexit, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/uk-government-sued-for-third-time-over-illegal-air-pollution-from-diesels">air pollution crisis</a> and Donald Trump’s decision to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40127326">withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement</a>, <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/imdk9bjaff/TimesResults_170531_VI_Trackers_W.pdf">polls</a> show that only 5-7% of people identify the environment as one of the most important issues facing the country in the election – which means it doesn’t even make one of the top ten issues.</p>
<p>This will deeply frustrate the Green leadership, for whom Brexit could have been a major strategic opening. The EU has <a href="http://environmenteuref.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-report.html">significantly shaped British environmental policy</a> over the years, and as the recent <a href="http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/greeneruk_hustings.php">Greener UK Hustings</a> demonstrated, no one is certain what British environmental governance will look like once the Brexit process is complete. Many are deeply concerned that EU-derived green policies could even be <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/great-repeal-bill-environment-theresa-may-conservation-climate-change-wildlife-protection-wwf-a7658196.html">dismantled wholesale</a>.</p>
<p>The larger parties have all tried to reassure the public that environmental laws will not be swept away or weakened, but only the Greens use their manifesto to promise unequivocally to retain or enhance “all existing environmental laws”. That’s all very well, but it isn’t enough to shift the Brexit debate to a stage where the party can play a major role.</p>
<p>The party looks to be in for a disappointing election night. Lucas should be re-elected, but the Greens will struggle to make an impression anywhere else; for all their smart moves, they’re currently polling at around 2% nationally, putting them behind even UKIP. Crowded out by Labour’s leftward shift while the public tunes out on environmental issues, the Greens look set to be marginalised for some time yet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78643/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Carter is funded by 'UK in a Changing Europe' to investigate the impact of Brexit on UK environmental policy and politics. He is a member of Friends of the Earth and WWF.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fay Farstad is funded by 'UK in a Changing Europe' to investigate the impact of Brexit on UK environmental policy and politics.</span></em></p>Despite their clever repackaging and repositioning, the Greens face a disappointing election night – and their biggest problem isn’t going away.Neil Carter, Professor in Politics, University of YorkFay Farstad, Associate Lecturer, Environment Department, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786462017-05-31T21:47:36Z2017-05-31T21:47:36ZMissing May: she was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t join the debate<p>Jeremy Corbyn’s late decision to participate in the BBC’s election debate injected some interest and potential excitement into an event that had risked being ignored.</p>
<p>With the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-gain-tory-victory-theresa-may-general-election-8-june-yougov-opinium-polls-a7709961.html">polls narrowing</a> in Labour’s favour and with the party leader having performed well in the campaign so far, he hoped to maintain the momentum and increase pressure on the Conservatives. Despite speculation throughout the day about the intentions of Theresa May, the prime minister stuck with her original decision to stay away and send the home secretary, Amber Rudd, to represent the Conservatives in her place. Corbyn and Rudd also faced the representatives of the Scottish National Party (SNP), the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and Plaid Cymru in the debate.</p>
<p>The six questions put to the politicians by the invited audience were fairly predictable, covering living conditions, Brexit and immigration, public finances, national security, climate change and leadership. There were no real surprises, with Corbyn and other left-leaning politicians – Caroline Lucas of the Greens, Angus Robertson of the SNP and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru, as well as Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats – repeatedly condemning the government for its cuts to welfare and public services.</p>
<p>Paul Nuttall of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) came under frequent attack from other leaders, while making his party’s stock points on Brexit, the necessity of immigration controls, and terrorism.</p>
<p>Rudd generally found herself in the position of defending the government’s record, although she also launched a number of attacks on Corbyn, particularly over what she called his “fantasy economics” and his votes against anti-terror laws. Corbyn came under occasional attack from Nuttall on terrorism. Pressed by the moderator, Mishal Husain, Corbyn also stumbled in defining what he meant by a “fair” immigration system.</p>
<p>Corbyn didn’t make the most of his late entry into the debate, although he didn’t make any obvious gaffes either. Of the smaller parties’ leaders, Lucas performed best, setting out a clear liberal-progressive vision of a fairer society, based on freedom of movement, opposition to Trident, and combating climate change. But it will probably have little effect, as the Greens are leaking votes to Labour, which now appears to be attracting the bulk of the anti-Conservative vote in England and Wales.</p>
<p>Was May right not to turn up? She received inevitable and trenchant criticism from the other leaders, particularly from Farron at the end, although not so much from Corbyn. That was perhaps surprising given the fanfare that surrounded Corbyn’s late decision to take part. He might have been expected to make more of May’s weakness in staying away.</p>
<p>In reality, May was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. By not taking part, she was accused of running scared from the voters. But if she had turned up, she could have been accused of dancing to Corbyn’s tune, being seen to follow his lead in participating rather than following her own judgement. It would have been mocked as another u-turn.</p>
<p>As it was, the format of the debate would not have played to May’s strengths. She would have been angrily assailed by the other leaders and found herself having to shout to make herself heard or completely drowned out. She doesn’t have the type of combativeness in debate that Rudd possesses and used to some effect here. All in all, despite some embarrassing barbs about her non-appearance, May was probably better off sticking with her original decision.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Quinn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>She faced criticism for not taking part in the BBC head-to-head, but the PM would have struggled had she done another late U-turn.Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/646542016-09-02T15:33:43Z2016-09-02T15:33:43ZCaroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley share Green Party leadership – and an eye for a fruitful alliance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136453/original/image-20160902-20238-1b72g1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lucas has been vocal about pushing for co-operation with Labour.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Anthony Devlin</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Even the most eager gambler would have struggled to find odds yesterday for the Green Party leadership contest. One betting site was inviting customers to suggest rates. The obvious interpretation of this is that the contest was too predictable and too peripheral to interest the gambling public. But, in fact, only the former is true.</p>
<p>Sure enough, the firm favourite Caroline Lucas has been announced as the new joint leader. Lucas is the party’s only member of parliament and has already served as leader between 2008 and 2012 when she stood down to focus on her Brighton constituency. Crucially, this time around, she will share the leadership with Jonathan Bartley.</p>
<p>The dual candidature of Lucas and Bartley in this contest, which was prompted by Natalie Bennett’s decision not to seek a third term as leader, has been described as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/02/caroline-lucas-jonathan-bartley-green-party-leaders">truly radical</a>”. Lucas said on winning that “we are incredibly proud to be the first leaders of a political party in this country to be job sharing”.</p>
<p>In fact the idea of joint or dispersed leadership is neither as novel, nor as significant to this contest, as some of the media coverage has implied. The Conservatives had no single leader for six years between 1911 and 1922, for example. The Liberal Democrats started out with two leaders, following the merger of the “two-headed” <a href="https://www.libdemnewswire.com/short-history-liberal-sdp-liberal-democrats/">Alliance partnership</a>.</p>
<p>And the development of devolved institutions has split the focus of nationalist leadership away from Westminster. So the SNP has a leader in Scotland and a leader in the British parliament – as indeed do the other parties.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"771710687055900672"}"></div></p>
<p>Even the most ostensibly independent leaders have to share power, of course, as in the effectively dual premiership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Some have <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/granola-pact-there-rift-between-natalie-bennett-and-caroline-lucas">suggested</a> that this was already the case in the Greens before Bennett’s departure.</p>
<h2>Where next for the Greens?</h2>
<p>The sweeping victory of Lucas and Bartley says more about the likely direction of the Greens, though. Their campaign was based on a very explicit bid for co-operation with other leftist parties in a “progressive alliance”. The aim would be to agree not to fight over parliamentary seats in the next election in order to focus on taking on the right.</p>
<p>Other leadership candidates dismissed the prospect of making a deal. Some were also suspicious of <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/matt-townsend/green-party-leadership-election-stitch-up">crowning Lucas</a> as the once and future monarch of the party. The fear that Lucas and Bartley were carried forward as mainstream media favourites with a nomination list of the Greens’ great and good which railroaded opposition might be given credence by their 86% share of the first preferences cast – they might have done too well to make it look like an equal contest. </p>
<p>The familiar tension between purist “dark green” radicalism and electoralist, broader environmentalism is visible here in the concerns about Lucas and Bartley ticket.</p>
<p>Bartley once worked for the Conservatives, which is a difficult pill for some on the left to swallow. That pill has been somewhat sweetened by the idea of the joint leadership with Lucas – which is presented as a nod to decentralisation and the limitation of over-powerful leadership, to which radical Greens are particularly committed. Before 2008, the party resisted even having a leader at all. Instead, it maintained a revolving panel of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/6484987.stm">“principal speakers”</a>. Aware that there remain doubters in her own ranks, Lucas was careful to reassure conference-goers after winning that “the distinctive Green Party message matters more than ever”.</p>
<p>The real significance of the new Green leadership will become more evident on the fringes of the other parties’ conferences over the next few weeks. Lucas continues to push for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/the-urgent-need-for-a-progressive-alliance">inter-party co-operation</a>, calling for Labour “to recognise that a more plural politics is in both their electoral and political interests”.</p>
<p>How Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists (who, in Wales, have run joint campaigns with the Greens before) react will be the test of the importance of this leadership election.</p>
<p>As the fate of the last government showed, England – in Disraeli’s fabled phrase – <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/disraeli-england-does-not-love-coalitions-17629.html">“does not love coalitions”</a>. They are suspicious of most inter-party deals. However, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jul/23/immigrationpolicy">tacit co-operation</a> between Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats in 1997 was the basis of great electoral success and forged a parliamentary combination supporting major constitutional changes including devolution and the introduction of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/human-rights-act-14984">Human Rights Act</a>.</p>
<p>The Greens came away from 2015 with a million votes and an increased membership. That gives them leverage with Labour. And with the Conservative government rowing back on some <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/24/the-9-green-policies-killed-off-by-tory-government">important green policies</a> brought in under the coalition with the Liberal Democrats between 2010 and 2015, there is a clear clear platform on which to campaign.</p>
<p>Until the formula and conditions for achieving co-operation are reached, however – in the right issues being on the public agenda and the willing co-operation of personalities in other parties – the odds are that Lucas and Bartley will remain only potentially significant as leaders of the Green Party.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Cole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The job-share candidates were always the favourites to win. Their challenge now will be to convince Labour to work together too.Matthew Cole, Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401942015-04-16T15:16:31Z2015-04-16T15:16:31ZFact Check: are cold homes bigger killers than road accidents or alcohol?<blockquote>
<p><em>Around 9,000 people die prematurely each year in the UK because they cannot afford to heat their homes. That’s more than the number killed on our roads, or through alcohol.</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Caroline Lucas, Green Party candidate for Brighton Pavilion, <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04-14/watch-live-green-party-launch-revolution-manifesto/">speaking at the launch</a> of the Green party manifesto.</strong></p>
<p>The Green Party has pledged £45 billion to end the <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04-14/greens-45bn-pledge-to-end-cold-homes-crisis/">“cold homes crisis”</a>. In particular, Caroline Lucas has claimed that fuel poverty is blighting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are struggling to pay high fuel bills. The party has highlighted figures from Age UK which estimated that cold homes could have <a href="http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Campaigns/The_cost_of_cold_2012.pdf?dtrk=true">cost the NHS around £1.3 billion</a> each year.</p>
<p>The Green Party indicates the numbers on deaths come from a <a href="http://www.ukace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACE-and-EBR-fact-file-2015-03-Chilled-to-death.pdf">recent report</a> published by Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) in March 2015, in which researchers estimated that in the past five years, 46,700 people in the UK have died due to living in a cold home. </p>
<p>The average number of “excess winter deaths” in the five years since 2010 is 27,830, of which it says around <a href="http://www.ukace.org/?s=cold+home">8,350 are due to cold homes</a>. According to ACE, this analysis used official data from the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html">Office for National Statistics</a>, <a href="http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/">National Records of Scotland</a> and <a href="http://www.nisra.gov.uk/">Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency</a>. The method defines the winter period as December to March, and compares the number of deaths that occurred in this winter period with the average number of deaths occurring in the preceding August to November and the following April to July. In other words, to calculate excess winter mortality, they have taken the number of winter deaths minus the average non-winter deaths. </p>
<p>As a comparison, ACE says that in the UK in 2013, 7,400 deaths were related to cold homes, 7,059 were related to alcohol and 1,575 were related to road or rail accidents.</p>
<p>In the same report, it also indicated that cold housing could contribute to <a href="http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/142077/e95004.pdf">roughly 30% of excess winter deaths</a> based on the World Health Organisation’s crude estimates in 2011, although there is little firm evidence for this. </p>
<h2>Impact on health</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://whqlibdoc.who.int/euro/pre-wholis/ICP_BSM_002%283%29.pdf">World Health Organisation</a> has recommended a minimal indoor temperature of 18°C and a 2-3°C warmer minimal temperature for rooms occupied by sedentary elderly, young children and the handicapped. Below 16°C, resistance to respiratory infections may be diminished. There is also higher risk of high blood pressure for those living in cold homes. </p>
<p>What does the current scientific evidence tell us about the health impact of living in a colder home? Using the national representative <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20546/abstract">Health Survey for England in 1995-2007</a>, it was observed that the body mass index (BMI) levels of English adults older than 16 residing in air temperature above 23°C were lower than those living in an ambient temperature of under 19°C. This shows that those living in colder houses have higher BMI. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273%2813%2902058-5/abstract">In Scotland</a>, indoor temperature below 18°C could account for 9% of the population risk for high blood pressure in Scottish adults aged 16 and above. </p>
<p>Both high BMI levels and hypertension are strong risk factors for many chronic, un-communicable diseases including cardiovascular disease (such as heart attack and stroke), metabolic disease such as diabetes, respiratory disease such as asthma and even cancer and dementia. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/lgb26">Premature deaths</a> are avoidable. They are <a href="http://www.poverty.org.uk/s60/index.shtml">more common</a> in Scotland than in England and Wales, although the number has been declining over years. In England, <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/over60s/Pages/The-top-five-causes-of-premature-death.aspx">one in three deaths</a> are before the age of 75, and the top five causes are cancer, heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and liver disease. Hypertension plays an important role in these diseases too. </p>
<p>In the UK, <a href="http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/4/212.abstract">since the 1980s</a>, many homes did not or could not meet the recommended threshold, 18°C. Until today, population-based research in this area <a href="http://rsh.sagepub.com/content/133/3/158.long">is limited</a>, particularly <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/43/1/7.short">for children</a>. Monitoring the relationship of indoor temperature and health over the longer term needs more research to fill in this knowledge gap. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Scientific evidence proves that cold homes are associated with hypertension, which can lead to diseases such as heart disease and other chronic illnesses. But the numbers for the real impact of this in the UK are difficult to pin down. </p>
<p>Therefore, the figures mentioned by Caroline Lucas and the Green party could be perceived as accurate, although not necessarily precise. There is a big knowledge gap in understanding the effect of low indoor temperature on human health, whether physically or mentally. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This response vividly illustrates why and how poorly insulated and energy-inefficient cold homes link to livelihood and health. Cold homes due to fuel poverty, especially in deprived communities, are one of the most critical causes of excess winter deaths. Although initiatives such as <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/energy-company-obligation-eco">ECO</a> and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/overview">Green Deal</a> have helped dampen the effect, resulting in positive change in lives and communities, their direct and indirect effect on health implication has not been fully understood. </p>
<p>These premature deaths must be eliminated. With more research and if addressed correctly, this critical “silent killer” will alleviate significant pressure away from the NHS, and provide a sustainable, efficient and healthy society.</p>
<div class="callout">The Conversation is fact checking political statements in the lead-up to the May UK general election. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert reviews an anonymous copy of the article.<br><br><a href="https://theconversation.com/factchecks/new">Click here to request a check</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible. You can also email factcheck@theconversation.com </div><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40194/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Siau Ching Lenny Koh has received fundng from the European Regional Development Fund, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). This article does not represent the views of the research councils. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivy Shiue (Scthiue) does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Green Party says fuel poverty is causing a high number of winter deaths due to people living in the cold. Are they right?Ivy Shiue (Scthiue), Assistant Professor, Heriot-Watt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/387352015-03-16T15:24:10Z2015-03-16T15:24:10ZFact Check: has turning the NHS into a market cost £10 billion?<blockquote>
<p>It has been estimated that entrenching market structures in the NHS, for example through tendering, bidding and contracting to the private sector, costs over £10 billion a year. Why does the prime minister not think that that money would be better spent on patient care?</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Caroline Lucas, Green party MP for Brighton, at <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150311/debtext/150311-0001.htm#15031163000331">prime minister’s questions</a>.</strong></p>
<p>The £10 billion figure Caroline Lucas cites here is based on data contained in a 2010 House of Commons health committee <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmhealth/268/268i.pdf">report on commissioning</a>. The report cites figures that suggest that “administration” costs of running the NHS amounted to 5% of total NHS expenditure in the pre-market days of the 1980s, rising to 13.5% more recently (rounded up to 14% elsewhere in the report). Deducting one figure from the other, the Green Party <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/nhs-brink-privatisation-health-service-cross-party-bill">concludes that this means 9%</a> of the budget (which they take to be £120 billion) is spent on “running the NHS as a market”, equating to approximately £10 billion. </p>
<p>To find out whether the market has cost £10 billion, there are two steps to consider: first, what are the costs of running the NHS? And second, have these costs increased since the introduction of the market?</p>
<p>It is notoriously difficult to estimate the management and administration costs of healthcare systems. This may explain why, in contrast to the figures cited by the Green Party, other sources present management costs at much lower levels. The <a href="http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs">NHS Confederation</a> claims that “in 2008-9 the management costs of the NHS had fallen from 5% in 1997-98 to 3%”. The devil is in the detail and much of the detail depends on the definitions used to count the staff working in “management” and “administration”. </p>
<p>The source cited in the health committee document reveals that the figure of 13.5% is drawn from an unpublished 2005 report by the University of York’s Karen Bloor and colleagues, which looked closely at the national workforce data in order to attempt to capture fully the staff who could be categorised as working in administrative and management functions in the NHS. Though unpublished, the report can be requested from the authors.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16870/nhs-work-stat-nov-2014-pdf.pdf">national statistics on workforce</a> include a category called “NHS infrastructure support” which includes “administrative managers and senior managers”, the latest figures for which show 37,474 managers (defined by role) at November 2014. These are the figures used for estimates of management costs at the low end of the scale as described by the NHS Confederation and indeed, manager numbers have been falling over recent years. </p>
<p>Yet, this category of “managers” excludes many other administrative staff who are working outside the central infrastructure. In particular, there is another category of staff called “support to clinical staff” which, in addition to staff who are involved in the direct care of patients (such as healthcare assistants and nursing auxiliaries), includes clerical and administrative staff – 90,716 at November 2014. The headline figure also excludes the 61,223 management and administration staff who were <a href="http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13724/nhs-staf-2003-2013-over-rep.pdf">working in GP surgeries in 2013</a>. Aggregating all these staff together and assigning estimates of salary costs, led the authors to the higher figure of 13.5%. </p>
<p>Any calculation therefore hinges on the type of staff costs included and this is complicated by data availability and definitions. So rather than being a measure of the difference between pre-market and post-market NHS, the higher estimate of 13.5% is actually just a more comprehensive estimate than earlier ones. </p>
<p>It is fair to assume that more market-based systems are indeed likely to cost more to run than administered systems, partly because they involve transactions between purchasers and providers, which will increase costs associated with contracting – such as measuring and monitoring provider performance. </p>
<p>But there is no way of knowing what is the “right” level of running costs for a healthcare system and, in many ways, the question is the wrong one to ask. The main issue is whether the introduction of market-based incentives has produced sufficient extra gains in terms of the performance of the NHS, to outweigh any extra costs incurred in running the system. This is a much bigger question which is even harder to answer than what those costs actually are. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Attributing £10 billion of expenditure to the extra cost of running the NHS as a “market” is not strictly true. While the management and administration costs of running a market-based system are undoubtedly higher than those in an administered system, the comparison made in the claim does not actually measure this difference. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The verdict is right. As the commentator points out, the figures used by Caroline Lucas were extrapolated from statistics that do not reflect the incremental cost of running the NHS progressively as a market as opposed to a strictly public-provided service. </p>
<p>First of all (fortunately) the NHS is not really run as a market, at least not as of yet. The quasi-market incentives introduced over the years in the NHS (payment by results, budgets to GPs, yardstick competition, and so on) have mainly been meant to induce competition in quality, rather than cutting costs, and to reduce wasteful use of resources induced by retrospective payments. So, they have aimed to increase the health gains achievable given a limited budget. </p>
<p>There are many pros to introducing these incentives – as long as the pros are corrected for, for example by making sure that those who benefit from increased information on provider quality aren’t just those who are well-off, but this has not been a priority. </p>
<p>Although there are reasons to worry about the total NHS budget and the potential introduction of the private sector to substitute rather than complement NHS provision given recent similar experiences in other countries like Spain, the argument used by Lucas in favour of a classical public provision of healthcare was not chosen soundly and the statement that the NHS is run as a market is, for the moment, very stretched.</p>
<div class="callout">The Conversation is fact checking political statements in the lead-up to the May UK general election. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert reviews an anonymous copy of the article.<br><br><a href="https://theconversation.com/factchecks/new">Click here to request a check</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible. You can also email factcheck@theconversation.com </div><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38735/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Goddard receives research funding from the Department of Health and NIHR. The Centre of which she is Director receives research funding from a variety of sources.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mireia Jofre-Bonet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Green MP Caroline Lucas estimated that introducing market structures to the NHS costs over £10 billion a year – but is this true?Maria Goddard, Professor of Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.