Politics: who sets the agenda?

By Richard North - August 18, 2023

Despite Sunak’s attempts to define the agenda for the forthcoming political season, he does not seem to be entirely in control.

For sure, his focus on inflation and prices is spot on, if the Ipsos Issues Index is any guide. It puts the issue at the top of its list, with 37 percent of respondents mentioning as a concern.

The list, incidentally, is based on a representative sample of 1,004 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain and the answers are spontaneous responses. Participants are not prompted with any answers.

Number two in the list is the closely linked issue of the economy, which scores equal with inflation, on 37 percent of mentions. This is actually a rising concern, up seven points on last month and, we are told, is of particular interest to Labour party supporters and the middle classes. Predictably, Sunak is also taking this very seriously.

But what he hasn’t flagged up with any prominence is the surprise number three, a new entry up 13 points from fifth position, listed as “pollution, environment and climate change”.

This issue is mentioned by 25 percent of respondents, co-equal with the NHS which has dropped eight points to lose its former number one position in the list of the nation’s concerns. It stands at the highest level since the COP26 conference in Glasgow in November 2021.

Although the new number three has a portmanteau description, there is no doubt that the key element is taken to be climate change. Mike Clemence, a researcher at Ipsos suggests that the new prominence most likely stems from news reports about wildfires and extreme temperatures disrupting holidays.

Of course, one could always be cautious about a single poll. Looking at the You Gov tracker on the most important issues facing the country, for instance, we see that it gives “environment” a score of 29 percent for 14 August, down from 31 percent on 7 August.

However, over the years, there is no doubt that the YouGov trend is rising, up from 9 percent in June 2016 when Brexit was very much in the news. It would be hard to deny that this was not an issue of public concern, even if the “economy” is rated at 62 percent – vastly more important by that measure.

Compared with the prominence given to the economy by the politicians, and their general reluctance to talk about climate change, it is reasonable to ask two initial questions.

The first is whether these expressions of concern over particular issues have any real political impact – whether concern, say, for “climate change” might influence voters’ behaviour, perhaps influencing the parties for who they vote, over and above other considerations.

This is perhaps better illustrated by the YouGov poll which has 62 percent for the “economy” and 29 percent for the “environment”. Would someone who strongly favours the economic policy of one party change their vote because they disapprove of its policy on climate change – especially if there is only a marginal difference between parties.

One must also ask, in this context, whether sentiment is so fickle that its political influence might be marginal – or unreliable. One notes, for instance, that in the YouGov tracker, there is a distinct seasonal variation. Respondents tend to be far more concerned about climate change during the height of summer than they are in the depths of winter.

What, therefore, would be the effect of party divisions on climate change policy if Sunak opted for a winter election and snow lay on the ground when people went to the polls?

For the second substantive question, one has to ask – in general terms – whether concern about particular issues is primarily influenced by the agendas set by politicians, or whether some concerns lie outside the political area.

And if there are high profile issues, with a potentially high political impact, where the concern is not being driven by party political activity, one must ask who is setting the agenda.

This most definitely would seem to apply to climate change. With Ipsos noting that respondents are reacting to news headlines about extreme temperatures and wildfires experienced across Europe and the world, the indications are that the media is setting the agenda.

Here, there are huge difficulties in assessing how people actually respond to the media, especially as readership of the print media is dropping, and different age groups rely on different sources and respond in very different ways to what they see and read – especially online material.

Nevertheless, it is very clear that much of the media has been beating the drum for climate change of the past weeks., And, with the Maui wildfire providing the trigger, the media has been quick to increase its general reporting on wildfires, giving the impression of a worldwide “epidemic” of burning.

Since Maui, in short order, we have had reports of an out-of-control wildfire on the Spanish Canary island of Tenerife and now we are being regaled with reports on a major fire threatening Canada’s Northwest Territories’ capital of Yellowknife, with residents fleeing the approaching wildfire in long convoys while air evacuations are underway.

What we then get is news agencies such as AP putting two and two together to make five, with provocative headlines suggesting linkage and a common causation for the fires – the obvious candidate being climate change.

While in earlier pieces I have explored the causation of the Maui and Tenerife fires – showing that dynamics unrelated to climate change are involved, the Canadian fire is particularly interesting.

While diverse media are hyperventilating over climate change, in September 2020 we have a CBC report introducing a study on a phenomenon dubbed the “fire paradox”.

The study, carried out by Natural Resources Canada and published in the journal Nature Communications in May 202o. tells us that the way northern wildfires are being fought could actually be increasing the fire risk. Basically, putting out small fires in forests leads to the creation of older, more flammable forests resulting in larger, more dangerous fires.

Thus, currently, we have Northwest Territories fire information officer Mike Westwick describe the encroaching Yellowknife fire as one that has burned deep, has burned hot, and found ways through multiple different sets of established [control] lines – the epitome of the “fire paradox”.

The crucial point that emerges from this recent experience is that, if the media is setting the agenda on climate change, it is doing so very badly, misleading rather than informing, with the potential to distort policy responses and let errant policymakers off the hook.

When it comes to the Maui fire, therefore, we have Hawaii’s governor Josh Green blaming the deadly blaze on a combination of weather conditions never seen before, linking them to climate change. “We’re seeing this for the first time in many different parts of the world”, he claims.

This conveniently diverts attention from the failure to address fuel load issues and take appropriate preventative measures which could have prevented the blaze altogether. Of course, governor Green wants this to be climate change – with that, he escapes blame for the disaster.

This points to a penultimate question that must be asked – whether we can afford, as a nation or even global community, to have the media misinforming the public, driving misplaced concerns that eventually translate into policy. But the bigger and final question is whether we have any choice in the matter, or whether we are doomed to being misinformed and driven to ruinous policies as a result.

And if there is to be another way, who makes it happen and how do they go about doing it?