Last Saturday, sat in front of an audience and camera at the Guardian Open Weekend, Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park, mystified the room and wider audience by taking his trademark independence to a new level. He declared on the topic of business, “predators” and “producers” that “Ed Miliband was right to raise this and right to use the language he used … He was flirting with a very important issue”. Whilst praising the opposition leader was perhaps unexpected, it is certainly not out of character for Goldsmith. He had previously in the day discussed the permanent tension between the front bench, the back bench which “must exist” and a cabinet that is forced to “speak as one”. Goldsmith, it seems, speaks as something of an entirely different political entity.
Goldsmith is not merely famed for his independent views, but for the striking rhetorical ways he negotiates and concretises his autonomous nature in the often unstable political sphere. Discussing immorality in business, Goldsmith drew an extreme comparison between newspapers and concentration camps: “If the only way a business can stay afloat is by engaging in immoral or unethical behaviour then that business should change its model or go out of business […] Nobody said, for example, that Auschwitz should have been kept open because it created jobs”. Whilst the media was quick to condemn his analogy, one which undoubtedly got his vital point across, few would pay attention to his stipulation of ethics that very few wanted to truly hear. The rhetoric was brave; the content was braver.
Returning to his environmental ideas, the crux of his political views, his comments were perhaps not as surprising as they may seem; it simply takes an independent voice to reiterate views that have echoed through history. The environment has long been ingrained in Conservative ideology – Edmund Burke, the 18th century founder of modern classical liberalism claimed that “Never…did Nature say one thing and Wisdom say another”. More recently, greatly ahead of her time 20 years ago, Thatcher insisted that “it’s sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it’s sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it’s sensible to tackle the problem of waste”. It is not simply “sensible”, to use her own idiolect, but necessary.
This vital component of Conservative ideology should always come from a voice on the fringe of the party. It reminds us of these original values that will outlast frontbenchers, policies and prime ministers. More important than all of this; Goldsmith and every other backbencher MP has a duty, not simply to electorates but to the environment, to stand against irreversible damage to the planet.
Only last night Boris Johnson, a man with the biggest political mandate of any British politician, entered the fray supporting Goldsmith by declaring that a third runway would cause “intolerable traffic and fumes in the west of the city – and it will not be built as long as I am Mayor of London”. Goldsmith and Johnson don’t merely stand in the way of ecological disfiguring; they also stand firmly in the way of a government reversal of policy. They stand for everyone who will be affected by the runway both in the present and in the future. They stand for upholding promises. But most importantly, Zac Goldsmith stands as a paragon of an MP with the mettle and backbone to represent his constituencies in the most fair, unique, and often outspoken way.
Our people need more independent and devoted representation like this. Our parties need to be reminded that what is a fringe issue to them is the most central to someone’s electorates. Our country needs more Zac Goldsmiths.
Goldsmith is a right ToryLAD. Me and him are going to hunt some BANTERLOPE.
You say good as Goldsmith, I say good as Dennis Skinner. And my one didn’t push the law with his election expenses and make his way in life as the son of a controversial millionaire publishing magnate.
Whilst I respect Goldsmith’s environmental standpoint, there are hundreds of other more qualified, passionate voices on the issue who could make a real difference if they were given the chance to speak in Parliament. Instead we have Goldsmith, who after been thrown out of Eton buggered off on essentially an epic gap yah, got appointed to The Ecologist cause his uncle owned it and then became mates with Dave – and huzzah, he’s an MP.
Do we really not have any more credible, hard working politicians to celebrate in this country? This isn’t just picking on his past – all I’ve held of Goldsmith since taking his seat has been related to his breaching of election rules.
On a side note, I doubt a person requires considerable “mettle and backbone” to represent one of the most affluent constituencies in the country.
Most of what you’ve said is completely unsubstantiated, speculative and utterly rubbish. The old “people could do his job better” really doesn’t wash with me, or the people who voted him in, or anyone actually.
He’s got the mettle and backbone to stand against his party and represent the people of Richmond Park – wealth of them has literally **** all to do with this.
You sound like the Daily Mail, do you want to bring up his house price for no apparent reason or talk about Princess Diana?
@Anon.
First, I hope you realised the irony in calling my response “unsubstantiated and speculative” before making massive generalisations about peoples opinions. Though, could you point out the speculative?
Was he expelled from Eton? Yes, not that I’d hold that against him. Did he use the connections (namely, his uncle Edward) to go on years of travels around the world and then, without qualifications or any overwhelming life or work experience, get a senior position at The Ecologist? Yes, and you’d be deluded to think otherwise. It is something that happens in day-to-day life, I understand, but worth noting before we start sycophantically praising an elected official.
Are there hundreds of better qualified people to speak on environmental issues? Yes, and you’d be a fool to deny otherwise. If Cameron wanted a serious hard-hitter on climate change he could have looked a number of other places. What he probably wanted was a floppy haired Hugh Grant lookalike with lots of money.
Finally, have their been allegations against his election practices? Yes, the Electoral Commission also wrote a report on his illegal overspend. There is also a Channel 4 News piece on it if you’d prefer. So, what’s unfounded here?
As for standing against his party – this is the same boy who was rushed onto David Cameron’s parliamentary A List and whose only real political experience – given after he had been selected as a candidate – was being given the chance to write a report by his mate Dave. This being a report Dave agreed with. Really standing against the grain there.
Finally, you must have a warped perception of where the Mail’s politics lie. And it’s the Express that loves Diana, if you’re going to fling out media stereotypes.