Natalie Bennett: leftward bound. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Truly radical policies: how the Greens are hammering Labour’s left

The Green Party could stop Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister.

Until a few months ago, Labour thought that its passage to power was simple enough. Hold onto its core vote, scoop up angry left-wing voters disaffected with the Liberal Democrats, and watch Ukip and the electoral system do the rest. They were reckoning without the Greens.

In 2010, the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party amassed a combined 1 per cent of the vote. Today the Greens are averaging 5 per cent, and even reached an all-time high of 8 per cent in a YouGov poll last week. And their trajectory is only going up: their average support has doubled since April. They are rapidly gaining footsoldiers – the membership of the Green Party of England and Wales has risen by 90 per cent in 2014. For so long bereft of publicity, the Greens have astutely exploited their exclusion from the broadcasters’ proposals from TV debates.

The upshot is terrifying for Labour. A Green surge would shatter Labour’s fragile electoral coalition for good. No wonder David Cameron supports including the Greens in the TV debates.

Labour is alert to this threat. Last month it appointed Sadiq Khan to lead a Labour’s Green Party Strategy Unit. Khan seems to believe that the Greens can be flattened through flattery. This week, he praised Caroline Lucas “with whom I agree on a great many things” and Green supporters, who “share the same values and aims as the Labour Party: reducing inequality, saving the NHS, building more homes, a commitment to human rights and civil liberties and protecting our environment.” But he warned that “every vote for the Green Party only makes it one vote easier for the Conservatives to win.” Vote Green, Get Tory is the new Vote Ukip, Get Labour.

The great problem for Labour is that it cannot simultaneously launch an offensive on its left and right flanks. Before 2013, Ukip took only one Labour vote for every nine they took from the Conservatives: no wonder Labour seemed so unperturbed by their rise. Since January 2013, it has lost six voters to Ukip for every nine that the Conservatives have lost to the People’s Army. Labour can try – as it has, but to no avail – to win back Ukip defectors but reconciling this with reaching out to disaffected left-wingers flirting with the Greens looks like an impossible balancing act.

And the Greens want to make it harder still. At last night’s Leaders Live debate, when Natalie Bennett answered questions from young voters, the Green Party leader again positioned her party well to Labour’s left. She reiterated her support for a wealth tax, and said she was attracted by a top rate of income tax of above 50 per cent, which would be imposed on income earned over £100,000, rather than over £150,000 as Labour proposes. Bennett also reiterated her support for the abolition of all academies and free schools.

Throughout, the implication was clear. Where Khan called Labour “a truly radical party again”, Bennett was decrying them as vacillating supporters of timid and incremental change. Labour’s worst nightmare is that enough of the Lib Dem defectors it has been relying on agree.  

The Greens remain a long way from being a true “Ukip of the left”. They are yet to develop much working-class appeal – 61 per cent of its supporters are ABC1. Unless that changes drastically, they will not match Ukip in the election. But that does not mean they could not have a critical impact on the next general election: even with just three per cent of the vote, Ukip cost the Tories at least five seats in 2010. So perilous is Labour’s route to Downing Street that even similar damage to them from the Greens next May could stop Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister. 

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Getty
Show Hide image

Hillary Clinton can take down the Donald Trump bogeyman - but she's up against the real thing

Donald Trump still has time to transform. 

Eight years later than hoped, Hillary Clinton finally ascended to the stage at the Democratic National Convention and accepted the nomination for President. 

Like her cheerleaders, the Obamas, she was strongest when addressing the invisible bogeyman - her rival for President, Donald Trump. 

Clinton looked the commander in chief when she dissed The Donald's claims to expertise on terrorism. 

Now Donald Trump says, and this is a quote, "I know more about ISIS than the generals do"

No, Donald, you don't.

He thinks that he knows more than our military because he claimed our armed forces are "a disaster."

Well, I've had the privilege to work closely with our troops and our veterans for many years.

Trump boasted that he alone could fix America. "Isn't he forgetting?" she asked:

Troops on the front lines. Police officers and fire fighters who run toward danger. Doctors and nurses who care for us. Teachers who change lives. Entrepreneurs who see possibilities in every problem.

Clinton's message was clear: I'm a team player. She praised supporters of her former rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders, and concluded her takedown of Trump's ability as a fixer by declaring: "Americans don't say: 'I alone can fix it.' We say: 'We'll fix it together.'"

Being the opposite of Trump suits Clinton. As she acknowledged in her speech, she is not a natural public performer. But her cool, policy-packed speech served as a rebuke to Trump. She is most convincing when serious, and luckily that sets her apart from her rival. 

The Trump in the room with her at the convention was a boorish caricature, a man who describes women as pigs. "There is no other Donald Trump," she said. "This is it."

Clinton and her supporters are right to focus on personality. When it comes to the nuclear button, most fair-minded people on both left and right would prefer to give the decision to a rational, experienced character over one who enjoys a good explosion. 

But the fact is, outside of the convention arena, Trump still controls the narrative on Trump.

Trump has previously stated clearly his aim to "pivot" to the centre. He has declared that he can change "to anything I want to change to".  In his own speech, Trump forewent his usual diatribe for statistics about African-American children in poverty. He talked about embracing "crying mothers", "laid-off factory workers" and making sure "all of our kids are treated equally". His wife Melania opted for a speech so mainstream it was said to be borrowed from Michelle Obama. 

His personal attacks have also narrowed. Where once his Twitter feed was spattered with references to "lying Ted Cruz" and "little Marco Rubio", now the bile is focused on one person: "crooked Hillary Clinton". Just as Clinton defines herself against a caricature of him, so Trump is defining himself against one of her. 

Trump may not be able to maintain a more moderate image - at a press conference after his speech, he lashed out at his former rival, Ted Cruz. But if he can tone down his rhetoric until November, he will no longer be the bogeyman Clinton can shine so brilliantly against.