The perils of being a Green politician

I was supposed to have a quiet day today at the Green Party conference – fat chance. Most of the eve

I was supposed to have a quiet day today at the Green Party conference – fat chance. Most of the events I am organising won’t be happening until Saturday, but a lot of people are just now finding out that I’m standing for Principal Speaker and I am finding it hard to move around the conference centre here at Hove town hall.

Every few steps someone will stop to brief me on their specialist subject so that I can help promote it in the future. This may be frustrating when you’re on the way to the loo, but is really fascinating stuff.

Among other things, I’ve had a great talk with the architect of our ‘citizen’s income’ policy and one of the founder members of the party 33 years ago (longer than I have been alive!), a chat about ethical pensions and a heated debate on 4×4 campaign tactics with a councillor while he helped me put together the props for our Trident demonstration tomorrow.

All this has meant I have neglected the main conference programme, which is a bit of a shame as I had marked off tons of fringes and debates I didn’t want to miss, including a debate on social enterprises: organisations that link trade with a social mission. Half a million people in the UK already work in this sector, which just goes to show that having priorities other than profit can be good business sense. Never mind – I will just have to catch up on the news in the bar later on.

This morning I did speak in the main hall to propose my big local shops motion. Contrary to what many people think, we aren’t an ‘anti-business’ party, but restrict our support to enterprises that are ecologically sound and socially responsible. This translates in practice to liking local and small businesses but not big multinational companies that have terrible records on workers rights, massive carbon footprints and huge numbers of air and truck miles associated with their products. All fair enough, wouldn’t you agree?

We already had some good policies to support small businesses, but these were dotted about the various sections of our policy documents. I felt that we needed a dedicated chapter and some extra measures on the list, particularly because many local Green activists are running campaigns to help high streets and town centres that are in crisis thanks to out-of-town developers, greedy landlords and the predatory tactics of big supermarkets.

The motion was almost unanimously passed – a great relief - so we now officially support the introduction of ‘business conservation areas’, will insist new developments contain affordable space for small firms, will ban all new out-of-town developments, and will empower local authorities to bring in rent controls to prevent private landlords from driving up rents and forcing out independent retailers in favour of chain store ‘clones’.

Tomorrow promises to be even busier than today. Will I survive? Watch this space.

Sian Berry lives in Kentish Town and was previously a principal speaker and campaigns co-ordinator for the Green Party. She was also their London mayoral candidate in 2008. She works as a writer and is a founder of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.