Real Hope. Real Change. - On the Green Party [E&W] Manifesto

The New Realist is a radical social democratic publication advocating a realistic and pragmatic strategy for attaining socialism. Despite having some commendable policies within their manifesto, the Greens fail to demonstrate their capability to lead the left through such a strategy.

Post-Keynesianism and MMT

The Green Party implicitly supports Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), proposing that the only limit on government expenditure is inflation. However, the Greens' recklessly abuse this notion by stating that "that public expenditure can only be expanded as far as the economy has the capacity to absorb it without triggering dangerous levels of inflation". The New Realist criticises this fiscal rule as irresponsible, arguing that waiting for "dangerous levels of inflation" to kick-in will result in regressive policies facilitating the resurgence of neoliberal capitalism.

A more responsible fiscal rule, according to the New Realist, would allow borrowing as long as it promotes sustainable economic growth. Prudent spending should be encouraged to ensure an active state creates the conditions for growth without overheating the economy.

The New Realist appreciates the Greens advocacy for a more economically literate political economy. However, the Greens underutilise this new political economy by not advocating for a Green Job Guarantee maximising the number of workers working towards transforming our economies and society so they become zero-carbon. Creating such jobs would help drive the economy towards promoting green growth. Restructuring the economy this way is essential for building zero-carbon industry in the UK and kickstarting a Green Industrial Revolution.

Taxes

The New Realist finds the Greens' tax polices irresponsible, overly focused on new taxes and raising existing taxes, rather than seeking the right balance between economic growth and ecologically unsustainable.

Tax reform should be high on the agenda by abolishing regressive taxes, such as VAT, business rates, fuel duties, and council tax, and replacing them with carbon taxes and land value taxes. The Greens should consider the impact of carbon taxes on the poor, who are more likely to own older and higher emitting cars. It's the middle and upper classes who can afford the low-carbon cars. Ignoring this will result in resentment, as we have seen with criticism of ULEZ in both London and Glasgow.

If social democratic policies hurt the working classes, then social democracy will not be viable in the medium to long term. This is the problem with left-wing parties like the Greens. They seek high taxes that suffocate the economy, which hampers the sustainability of predistribution and redistribution programmes. The sheer cost of living reduces the state's ability to tax ordinary people without further hindering growth and productivity.

The Financial Industry

Financial services have a crucial part to play in achieving a rapid transition to a zero- carbon economy and ensuring that nature is protected. Green MPs would work to make this industry a force for good – directing finance towards the businesses that are critical to creating a better future for all. (p.14)

The Green's lofty ambitions for the financial industry are naive. Certainly, we need a transfer of wealth from rentier capitalism to productive enterprise, meaning directing the financial industry towards such.

However, the power of finance is global, not national. The Greens are hopelessly naive in thinking that the financial industry will simply go along with their plans. The financial system is the pillar of neoliberal capitalism. It needs a revolution in global financial institutions, with corresponding national revolutions working in tandem, for a change to occur. None is proposed in the Green manifesto.

Economic Growth

Humanity faces two contradictory facts which are not easily reconciled. First, that economic growth is required for sustaining civilisation. Second, that economic growth will ultimately devastate the ecosystem. Some

The Green Party sees endless growth as damaging our wellbeing and destroying the ecology of the planet. Of course, they're right. However, do they resolve the dilemma above? No. The only proposal they put in place is changing how we measure economic prosperity. The change itself is a good policy because GDP growth is a poor measure of both growth and prosperity. Harmful outcomes can occur when measuring the wrong thing. However, simply changing a metric won't resolve the dilemma.

Housing

The greatest disappointment in the Greens manifesto, for the New Realist, is the fact it seeks to only build 150,000 new social homes per year, which will leave the UK just short of 2 million new homes it desperately needs. The Greens' reluctance in building new homes means its policies won't alleviate the cost of living crisis. The Greens' NIMBYism is simply unacceptable and not informed by balancing economic and ecological needs. This is the failing the Greens have always fallen victim to, which is why it difficult taking them seriously as the party of the left.

Furthermore, the lack of detail in how it seeks the implementation of rent controls is downright appalling. Rent controls can work when designed well, especially in coordination with other areas of housing policy. There is no evidence of this in the Green manifesto, though.

Climate Change

The New Realist believes the Greens' objective of creating a zero-carbon society by 2040 is unrealistic. It isn't feasible by 2040 both technologically and economically. The New Realist rejects the assertion that nuclear power is a mere distraction and sees it as important of source of low carbon energy for meeting high demand for electricity. Nevertheless, nuclear power is not a substitute for renewable energy sources. They should complement each other.

Insulation

Ensuring all homes are insulated to a certain standard of EPC B is a must. However, what about those homes that cannot reach that standard? The Greens should have committed that all new social homes must be EPC A rated as well. Ensuring new homes are future proofed and maximising either solar energy or heat pumps are welcome measures.

Local Democratic Control

The Greens' plan for democratic local control is definitely the future, especially when AI starts taking jobs away from workers. However, it offers nothing of substance on how it will do this and neither does it explain what kind of governance cultural will be promoted. Local government by itself isn't a magic solution. Creating an institution isn't sufficient for its success.

Short Flights

The New Realist supports the frequent fryer levy and especially the ban on short flights for journeys that take less than three hours. The New Realist would ban short flights altogether given their high carbon footprint. Other than for defense and medical purposes, there is no reason for having short flights in the UK. The country simply isn't big enough.

Public Transport

The Green Party is correct in saying that the decline in public transport infrastructure hinders reaching net-zero targets. The NIMBYism of the Greens conflicts with making public transportation more accessible. Constructing public transport infrastructure is far too expensive. Encouraging cycling and walking is important for tackling climate change and fostering a healthier society.

Nature and Personhood

They would introduce a Rights of Nature Act granting nature and ecosystems the right to personhood, allowing people to sue others on how they act towards nature. The New Realist accepts that this right to personhood for nature is needed, but it cannot be used as a means of stopping productive activity that would overall help create a zero-carbon society in the long-run, even if damage to nature in the here and now were to occur.

Health

The New Realist agrees with the Greens on ending market competition within the NHS but is critical of their goal of only wanting a "steady reduction in waiting lists" and not telling us how it will guarantee rapid access to GPs. Market competition does not produce beneficial outcomes for patients. Instead, it raises costs

Like Labour, the Greens promise to put mental health on the same footing as physical health. They go further promising access to evidence-based therapies within 28 days. Furthermore, mental health services will be inclusive to the needs of groups with protected characteristics, which is welcome.

The Greens seek a preventive health care approach when it comes to cancer through the National Cancer Control Plan. The New Realist is disappointed that there are no specific public health measures mentioned though accepts the need for them. There is no mention of the lack of equipment which is delaying cancer diagnoses as well. Ending new cases of HIV by widening access for HIV prevention drugs like PrEP is welcome.

Euthanasia

Despite the New Realist's support for euthanasia in principle, it is completely unacceptable for the Greens to simply assert that "proper safeguards would need to be put in place". If people want to die, we should find more dignifying ways than suicide, which usually occurs through desperation causing suffering to both the victim and loved ones. However, exploitation is a serious moral issue that must be contended with. Furthermore, euthanasia can't be an excuse for engaging in de facto eugenics where people die simply because they have undesirable traits. Without a detailed specification of what the proper safeguards would be, the Greens should not be putting advocacy for euthanasia in their manifesto.

Social Care

The New Realist supports the push for free social care. Healthcare and social care are becoming interlinked due to our demographic situation. The Greens will follow the example of the Scottish government, which provides free social care for over-65s on the condition they meet the eligibility criteria. Even though access to social care isn't universally free at the point of access, the Sottish government makes social care available for those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it.

Palestine

The New Realist mostly supports the Greens' stance on Palestine. Western governments are facilitating Israeli ultranationalism by supplying weapons to Israel and giving them cover for committing genocidal acts in Gaza. Britain has taken a lackadaisical approach to ending the de facto illegal occupation of the West Bank, which is tantamount to apartheid.

The Greens are ambivalent, though, on the form the final political solution must take. The New Realist believes the binational state is not immediately realisable as just outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would descend into either civil war, apartheid, or genocide. Both sides see the other as a threat, and putting them inside a single state will only see them compete for power so the other side could pose no threat. Only the two-state solution offers a realistic means of facilitating peace and equal rights for all in the short to medium term.

NATO and nuclear weapons

The New Realist disagrees with Britain letting go of its nuclear deterrent. The benefits of giving up the deterrent don't outweigh the costs. Given NATO's nuclear sharing programme and the US refusal for a "No Use First" policy, the Greens are right in insisting on a 'No Use First' policy though.

The Green's manifesto highlights the weaknesses of the modern left very well. It is not a serious party awaiting government while offering a radical alternative to the neoliberal status quo. It is too centred on middle-class support, keeping it detached from genuine working class concerns. The left must show how a Green Industrial Revolution will benefit the working classes and that the measures taken to tackle climate change are not designed to hurt the working classes. This is key for the emergence a green social democracy.

A realistic left informed by its values, not dictated by them, is key for becoming ready for governing. If the right are seen as the default parties of government, human civilisation will get destroyed by climate change. Advocating for climate change isn't sufficient; a real programme for change is needed.

Correction: This article was amended to highlight that it is the Green Party, not MMT, that advocates for government expenditure until dangerous levels of inflation has occurred. Acknowledgement to Professor Steve Hall for pointing out this error.