'The Green Party is Definitely to the Left of Labour'
Byline Times Chief Reporter Josiah Mortimer interviews Green Party Deputy Leader Zack Polanski AM
The Green Party is positioning itself as a real alternative to the Labour party in its new manifesto for the UK General Election, launched on Wednesday in the Sussex seaside town of Hove. The area is a traditional Green Party stronghold, next to the party's current (only) seat of Brighton Pavilion.
Leaders are pitching their party as the vote for “real hope and real change” against what they say is Sir Keir Starmer’s “status quo” offering. And they're looking to "quadruple" their seat tally from one to four.
But they face being squeezed by Labour’s 20-point lead over the Conservatives, and tactical voting to eject the Conservative Government.
In an interview with Byline Times chief reporter Josiah Mortimer for Byline Supplement, Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski - recently reelected to the London Assembly - sat down to discuss the party's ideology, some bold new pledges, and some big questions on tax and nationalisation.
Josiah Mortimer, Byline Times:
Thanks for taking the time. Obviously it’s a big day for the Greens today. The Green Party hates labels, but I'm interested in how the party is pitching itself this election. Would you say the party is certainly further to the left of the Labour Party? Do you consider yourself a left-winger?
Zack Polanski AM:
The party is definitely to the left of Labour. That's not difficult with Keir Starmer's attitude towards the Child Benefit cap, his U-turn on the £28 billion [annual green spending] pledge, and his complicity, along with the government, in what's happening in Gaza. I would personally consider myself left-wing, but labels aren't particularly helpful. Ultimately, what people want is a progressive politics that's about the actual policies. When people see your suite of policies or your manifesto, is that something you support or not? Labels can exclude people. But if you're putting me down, I'd definitely say I'm left-wing.
JM: The Greens are pitching to take both Conservative and Labour votes. Do you think the support you're getting this election is coming fairly evenly from former Conservative and Labour voters?
ZP: It is coming evenly. When I knock on doors in places like North Herefordshire and Waveney Valley, the conversations are often very similar to those in Bristol and Brighton. People sometimes think they're totally different conversations, but actually, even if they themselves own a house, their child or grandchild is still renting and would appreciate rent controls.
They're still worried about clean air, they still want green spaces protected, they still want more council homes built. There's a different tenor in terms of agricultural issues being more prominent in rural areas, and there are more younger voters in urban areas. But the central message is still the same.
JM: The Greens' messaging this election is that Labour are most likely going to get a majority, so it's fairly safe to vote Green. Isn't there a difficulty there? If Labour gets a majority, then the Greens aren't really going to have much influence.
ZP: You only need to look at [outgoing Brighton Pavilion MP] Caroline Lucas. Even if someone doesn't support the Green Party, they'd recognise the difference that one MP made to our national discourse, being able to stand up there during debates, make points clearly, and speak truth to power. You might not win the vote, but you certainly inform the debate, and you will win the vote over time. We've seen that with the climate crisis. It's much more prominent now, even amongst other parties. They wouldn't dare to be climate deniers now. Things are progressing in the right direction.
To quadruple that to four MPs would be strong. Caroline often talks about having six meetings all at the same time – on the NHS, climate crisis, policing, education. You can't take all of those meetings at the same time. Increasing the number of MPs means you can prioritise more issues. It will widen our scope so people who know they can trust us on the environment also know they can trust us to defend the NHS, end tuition fees, and build council houses or create more homes.
JM: I want to touch on the pledge to nationalise the Big Five energy companies. Is that funded the same way as the NHS pledge, through the change in National Insurance and capital gains tax?
ZP: Yes, but there are some nuances. With water companies, for instance, they're literally about to go bankrupt. Taking them into public ownership might not cost any money because shareholders shouldn't be getting any of that money. We're clear that taxpayers should not be charged for water companies' mistakes. Thames Water, in particular, is a case in point.
JM: So water companies would be nationalised without payouts to shareholders?
ZP: That's exactly what the model needs to look like. I had this conversation with Sadiq Khan in the London Assembly recently. I asked if he supports nationalisation of water companies. He said it looks like that's what's happening anyway. I said, "Yes, but would you like it to happen?" He just kept repeating that taxpayers shouldn't be paying any money for it.
I'm also clear taxpayers shouldn't be paying any money for it, but it's a better model anyway. This isn't something that should be happening just because things have gone wrong. It should never have happened in the first place. Thatcher said privatising these companies would make better services. We literally have sewage being pumped into our rivers. There's no better demonstration of when neoliberalism has led us to the path of creating a broken society.
JM: That's an interesting detail. There would be expropriation without compensation for water companies in the Greens' plans. What about energy companies? Would there also be no payments to shareholders for the state to take over those companies?
ZP: Energy companies are more complicated because we're talking about the five big retail companies, not the energy sector altogether. Ultimately, we're looking at community energy and moving more towards that model. How exactly that would be transferred over is a level of detail I can't give you right now. It would be about looking at experts around the ownership and how that transition would happen.
JM: The retail energy companies, by definition, are the front-of-house operations. They're the apps that people use, the branding for the energy they buy. Would nationalising them really change anything substantially about the state of the energy sector in the UK?
ZP: It would change things massively. Sorry to refer to Sadiq Khan again, but he created this People's Energy Company in London. What he actually did was take Octopus Energy and put a white label on it. It's still staying in the privatised model, artificially presented for the public. That's not benefited anyone, and it's been pretty disastrous.
If he had grabbed the moment and said, "Let's have the People's Energy Company where we're investing in wind turbines and solar, the workhorses of renewable energy," then crucially, that money from communities could be going back into the communities. They could be receiving investment from that.
Not only is that important in terms of reducing people's bills, but it's a different model of how our society is democratically arranged. It means people have more power over what's going on locally. The money can then flow straight back into those communities. I can see why privatised companies would not be keen on that model and would do everything to run kicking and screaming. But that's a model that people can get behind. That's the kind of real hope and real change in the manifesto.
JM: On the party’s planned National Insurance hike [to fund NHS spending], I've been speaking to Dan Neidle, a tax expert, about this. The Greens are increasing the upper earnings threshold from two to eight percent, affecting people earning over roughly £50,000 a year. Would those thresholds increase over time? Is that going to be matched to inflation? Or are we going to get to a situation where teachers start earning £50,000 in three years' time and suddenly have to pay this higher National Insurance rate?
ZP: I believe the threshold would be matched to inflation. It's important to point out that for most people earning £50,000, this is about £5 extra a week. To some people in the cost-of-living crisis, that will be a lot. But we need to bear in mind that they're earning £50,000. That's being offset by having a National Health Service where they're not needing to use private healthcare. It's offset by the fact that public transport is cheaper, and we'd be looking to subsidise that. It's offset by the fact that we have an education system that's better and a police force that's properly funded.
A more equal society is better for everyone. Of course, those on the lowest incomes benefit the most. But as The Spirit Level [book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett] demonstrated 10-15 years ago, a more equal society is better for rich people too.
It's about being honest with the public. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party are almost in a conspiracy of silence, talking about moving small pots of money around. They're talking about these mass crises, but it's not coherent to the public that you have a mass crisis and you're going to solve it by moving a small pot of money around. You do need big investment, and you need to make the taxation system fairer. Obviously, the bulk of that comes from a wealth tax on multimillionaires and billionaires. But yes, also from those people who can afford it, those with the broader shoulders, over £50,000 or more, making sure they're paying just a small bit extra, which is offset by the other benefits they're getting.
JM: Just lastly on that, the manifesto document says it affects five million people, but tax experts say it is more like 25% of taxpayers. So it's not just the richest people; it is a big chunk of ordinary voters and workers, isn’t it?
ZP: Even if you're talking about the top 25%, I'd say it's [right for] the top 49%. But the argument I've just made is that you're offsetting that with better public services that are cheaper and more affordable. The number of people I know, even the Patriotic Millionaires at one extreme who say, "Tax us more," and people who are just well-off, are sad and heartbroken that our country and our public services aren't working. They would be willing to pay a little bit more to fund those.
How much that little bit more is, I think, is an open discussion for further debate in the future. But in the manifesto, you draw a line in the sand. Drawing a line that says £5 extra a week at £50,000 seems reasonable to me, and I think most people can get behind that.
JM: Is the manifesto fully costed? All parties are talking about their pledges being fully costed, citing organisations that they like. Would you say it's fully costed?
ZP: It is fully costed. We've worked with credible organisations like the Wealth Tax Commission and the University of Greenwich. There are various people working in these sectors who have lent their expertise.
Green Party policy is made at the Green Party conference by one member, one vote. The working groups often have people from relevant sectors. In the Education Policy, there are lots of teachers who are naturally drawn to that. In our NHS or public health policy, there are a lot of health experts. It's had that internal check within how policy is made, which always makes the policy much stronger. I would say it often leads ahead of the other parties for that reason.
But then, once it came to the manifesto, we also ran it by experts in the field.
JM: Thank you. We really appreciate you taking the time.