David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
Every opinion poll tells broadly the same story so we have all come to accept it.
But the fragmentation of British political opinion is truly extraordinary and shows no sign of stopping. The rise of Reform – and the consequential damage done to the Conservatives – is now a familiar story, but it is now being replicated on the Left with the rise of the Greens.
Since the election of Zack Polanski as their leader, support for the Greens has increased by half and is within touching distance of Labour. From the Green perspective, there is the prospect of a virtuous circle as high poll ratings attract more media coverage which, in turn, gives them a further polling boost. It is perfectly plausible – especially with a brutal Budget to come – that we are entering a period in politics when the two most popular political parties in the country will have just nine MPs between them.
From a centre right perspective, there is plenty to dislike about the Green surge, although it certainly provides a threat to Labour and an opportunity for the Conservatives.
The principal concern – and this is no small matter – is that the Greens’ policies would be ruinous for the country.
If one believes in sustainable public finances, control of inflation, and a market-based economy in which hard work and enterprise are rewarded, the Greens are natural opponents. If one believes that we have to be able to defend our interests and values, the UK Green Party (in contrast, say, with the German Greens) is not an ally on the international stage. If one wants to move on from divisive culture wars, it would be the Greens who would drive forward a provocative agenda that would alienate large parts of the country.
It is worth dwelling on the economy for a moment and a couple of interviews Polanski did recently.
When interviewed by Danny Finkelstein on Times Radio, the Green leader was evasive on whether he favoured higher economic growth, criticising GDP as a measure of health and well-being. When Finkelstein subsequently pointed out this evasion and that the Green policy is critical of economic growth, Polanski took offence and accused Finkelstein of lying. The reality, of course, is that Finkelstein is right, as the 2024 Green manifesto makes clear when it describes “endless economic growth” as “undermining our well-being”.
To be fair, a Green government would certainly deliver on stopping “endless economic growth”, as highlighted when recently interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on Sunday with Kuenssberg. Polanski was asked about a wealth tax, the claim that it could raise £25bn a year, and whether any other country raises anything like this amount. As anyone who has spent more than three minutes considering the idea would know, the answer is no, but this information appeared to come as a genuine surprise to Polanski. He quickly moved the conversation on, however, by stating that “this isn’t about creating public investment, we can do that anyway, we don’t need to tax the wealthy to do that. This is ultimately about tackling the deep inequality in our society.”
There is quite a lot to take from that answer.
First, a wealth tax is Polanski’s central policy, yet he appeared willing to abandon his claim that it would raise £25bn very easily indeed. It suggests that he is not really interested in policy detail. Second, he is focused on inequality. He is correct to say that a wealth tax would reduce inequality in the UK by driving wealthy people elsewhere. This would inevitably make us poorer – including those relying on the welfare state who would suffer from the loss of tax receipts – but presumably he thinks that is a price worth paying. Third, his claim that we do not need higher taxes to create public investment deserves further scrutiny.
Implicit in this remark is that Polanski is a believer in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) or, as it has been reasonably described, the Magic Money Tree. Followers of MMT believe that governments that issue their currency do not need to rely on taxes or borrowing for spending since they can print as much money as they need. The purpose of taxes under MMT is to reduce inequality and, if necessary, take the edge off inflation if demand is too high, but if we want to fund public services all we need to do is print the money.
It is, to put it mildly, a fringe view. It fleetingly gained some popularity on the far-left at the time of pandemic when it was argued that governments could spend all they wanted and there would be no inflationary consequence (it didn’t turn out that way). It has never been put fully into operation, unless exponents of the theory want to claim Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. For the UK to go down this route would immediately result in a bond market crisis, the collapse of sterling, the complete destruction of our fiscal credibility, and rapidly rising prices.
For this, and other reasons (there is plenty to be said about NATO, Ukraine and national security), it is worrying that 15 per cent or more of our fellow citizens are telling pollsters that they would vote Green. But it is happening, and the other political parties will have to respond.
Most of the focus, rightly, is on the implications for Labour. This is where the Greens are getting their votes from, specifically that part of the Labour coalition made up of left-wing graduates disillusioned by a combination of the realities of office (no, you cannot spend money you don’t have) and Labour’s apparent prioritisation of socially conservative voters tempted by Reform.
This leaves Labour with a dilemma.
Does it go chasing after its Green defectors, flirting with wealth taxes and promising higher spending? Or does it take on the Greens, highlighting their economic irresponsibility, at the risk of upsetting some of their natural supporters?
The probability is that there won’t be a coherent response, particularly given the Prime Minister’s reluctance to take and hold a strategic position. In any event, there is clearly a risk in taking a gloves-off approach to the Greens that it just attracts more attention to them.
For the Tories, however, the incentives work the other way.
If by attacking the Greens, their profile is raised, the bigger the problem they become from Labour.
In particular, there is an opportunity to repeat the 2015 General Election message that a Labour Government would be in hock to an unpopular third party, but with the Greens playing the role of the SNP. The prospect of a minority Labour government depending upon the support of a far-left eco-populist is one that could drive moderate voters back to the Conservatives.
The Conservatives should be the party making the case for a dynamic and competitive market economy. The emergence of a party that is explicitly hostile to such values creates the need to articulate the case with greater force. No doubt the Greens would welcome the attention, but their rise also gives the Tories an opportunity not just to assist the fragmentation of the left, but also set out and defend Conservative economic values.
Taking the Greens seriously goes against the grain for one of the long-established parties, but in a changing political landscape, it is an opportunity not to be missed.
