The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Vote Green, get blue?

Caroline Lucas defends the Greens' claim to be the party of social justice.

By Daniel Trilling Published 27 April 2010 15:03

I've interviewed the Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, who is tipped to win a Westminster seat in Brighton Pavilion on 6 May. We discuss her party's left-wing manifesto, and Lucas's claim that the Greens are now the party of social justice. Some lefties, however, might balk at her suggestion that Green MPs would not be averse to voting in favour of Tory proposals, if the circumstances were right:

So, in a dream scenario for the Greens, a newly-elected Lucas holds the balance of power in Parliament. Which way would she turn? Her response is guarded: "we would be supporting proposals on a case by case basis, not going into a formal coalition."

Presumably, then, Lucas could envisage voting alongside the Conservatives in some cases? "In the unlikely event that the Tories come up with some proposals that we could support, yes. For example they were against the Heathrow airport expansion so Greens on the London Assembly supported them there."

That seems like a tricky strategy for a party that also pledges a commitment to social justice. "Our direction of travel is very much on the left," says Lucas. We would be likely to support measures that would promote our aims of a fairer, greener Britain. Addressing inequality through [economic] growth and accumulating more and more stuff on a planet of finite resources isn't going to be sustainable into the future. Therefore the role of redistribution is even more important to the Green agenda."

You can read the rest of the interview here.

More from Daniel Trilling

5 comments

Tue, 2010-04-27 15:42 — David Wearing1

I find the use of the pejorative "strident" to describe the Green manifesto a little bit odd coming from the NS, which I understand to be a progressive publication. I would expect that from the Spectator, perhaps, but not here. Any NS reader who looks up the word strident in the dictionary and then looks at what the Greens actually say will find that choice of words rather silly.

What is also a bit silly is the attempt to manufacture a controversy here. It is perfectly plain that a Conservative government could not rely on Green support in Parliament for its policy programme (read the two manifestos). The Greens have also said explicitly that they will oppose a Conservative government in any confidence vote in the Commons. So the headline "Vote Green Get Blue?" presents a question that does not arise on any sensible reading of the facts.

All that Lucas has said here is that the Greens would not sacrifice their principles to mindless tribalism in the vanishingly rare and unlikely event that the Tories did anything that aligned with the Green's policy programme. What else should she say?

Tue, 2010-04-27 16:36 — LiberalTory

This is the most ridiculous misrepresentation I have ever seen - even in the Staggers! She says that if she agreed with specific Tory proposals she's vote for them, how ON EARTH does that make her a Tory supporter? Especially as her manifesto makes it clear that the only things she would support are - to use your words - stridently left wing. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a nutter, but this is a perverse way to go about writing up an interview.

Tue, 2010-04-27 22:02 — Tracey Hill

In many ways, the Greens and the Tories do have quite a lot in common. Neither of them can claim to represent working class people: Green Party support comes primarily from university educated middle classes. Here in Brighton Pavilion, Labour's Nancy Platts has the support of the Trade Unions, not Lucas.

In local politics, Greens and Tories have often voted together to block planning applications which would have brought much-needed social and affordable housing to the city. Different reasons, but the result is the same - the most vulnerable lose out.

It would be the same if the Greens' wish to end economic growth came about - who would lost out in the ensuing job shortage, skilled professionals or school leavers?

Wed, 2010-04-28 07:52 — David Wearing1

Daniel - you portray potential Green support for Tory measures as "a tricky strategy for a party that also pledges a commitment to social justice". But the point Lucas explicitly makes is that she will only support them on the very rare occasions where, like with the third runway, they propose something consistent with the Green Party's values. So again, the question "Vote Green get Blue?" plainly does not arise.

Tracey - given the persistence of poverty and inequality under Labour, and the precious little the Unions have got in return for their dedicated support for the party, can Labour really claim to represent working people any more? Who out of Labour and the Greens supported the BA strikers, and who opposed them, for example?

Labour accelerated and took forward the Thatcherite deregulation of finance that led to the banking crisis, and seems only marginally less keen than the Conservatives to now foist the costs of that crisis onto those least able to pay for it, and least responsible for it. By contrast, the Greens favour green investment as an alternative to savage cuts, which would create jobs for people, rather than taking them away.

Don't get me wrong, I would vote Labour to keep a Tory out of my seat without a moment's hesitation. But after the last 13 years its impossible to ignore the reality of what Labour's become, and the fact that the Green's programme reflects traditional Labour values far better than Labour do.

and btw., Labour was always a coalition of working class together with some enlightened middle and upper class people. It is right-wingers who think there's something suspect about middle and upper class people being concerned by the welfare of those less fortunate than themselves. Genuine socialists, by contrast, understand and welcome it.