Caroline Lucas outlines how she'll work with Labour. Photo: Anoosh Chakelian
Show Hide image

What do we know so far about the Greens working with Labour in government?

Progressive alliances, no joint tickets, and ruling out working with Tories: the Greens clarify how they would work with Labour.

Green policies, red lines, watermelons, mangoes. It was the Green campaign launch this morning, and aside from rumblings about leader Natalie Bennett’s poor media performances, there was talk about how the party would work with Labour in government.

“We would be open to supporting a minority Labour government on a case by case basis,” Caroline Lucas told the press conference. “Working with parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru, with whom we’ve always had a formal arrangement in the European parliament, we would form a progressive alliance that would put real pressure on a minority Labour government.”

We have already heard from the Greens that they would be open to a confidence-and-supply arrangement, if they were to prop up a government at all, but Lucas went into further detail than we have previously heard from a party that refuses to discuss “red lines” – other than on scrapping Trident.

She said that the alliance of smaller parties, “would be able to get things like a ban on fracking, as a clear thing on the agenda of a future government, major investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, scrapping Trident...”

When I spoke to Lucas after the event, I pushed her on the “red lines” the Greens would draw ahead of working with Labour in any capacity. She insisted: “We haven’t got to that point, but what we do know is the kind of things we want to be able to promote and push as part of our agenda. And so that means the kind of results around voting reform, Trident, or fracking, or austerity – some of the worst aspects of austerity, and so forth.

“But we have not had that discussion, because as soon as you start saying what you wouldn’t work on, you’ve started drawing the ‘red lines’, which I’ve just said we’re not talking about.”

However, Lucas did reveal that the Greens will be having “internal discussions” about red lines, “whether or not we’ll make those public I think is another question”. She added that the party is also having private discussions with Plaid Cymru and the SNP about “the building of a progressive alliance”.

“In terms of putting that to voters, there’s an awful lot of interest, even from traditional Labour-voting members of having a minority Labour government subjected to a progressive force pushing them on these issues on austerity, the environment, or rail in public hands.”

Lucas’s aim is for this small party alliance to “help make Labour be the party many backbenchers, Labour voters would like it to be, as well as pushing on our own strong environmental policies too”.

She denies that she has spoken to Labour politicians about this prospect “yet”, but says “certainly talking about how the small parties will work together – that is happening now”.

One Labour shadow cabinet aide recently mentioned to me that some plans had been mooted in the party to work with individual Green candidates to avoid them splitting Labour’s vote in certain seats. “A similar idea to when Ukip and the Tories were going to have local peace pacts,” they tell me.

I put this prospect to Lucas, who rules out working with individual Labour MPs. “I can’t imagine joint tickets,” she says. “But what would be nice would be to have a change in the electoral system which would then mean the Greens and Labour are not having to fight each other.

“I think we’ve ruled out having any arrangement propping up the Tories; we are a left of centre party, therefore Labour is a much more likely party for us to work with. But at the moment the electoral system is such that we do end up fighting each other, and that’s unfortunate in a way.”

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zefferman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s).

One minister likened it to the general election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.