February 10, 2021 - 7:00am
On Monday IpsosMORI released polling showing the Greens on 8% of the vote — their joint-best polling performance since the 2019 general election and about three times as high as their actual vote share in 2019. Inevitably, this led to widespread chatter about how worried Starmer should be about this Green surge:
NEW @IpsosMORI / Evening Standard. Tory lead at 4 points – Greens up to 8(!)
Con 42 (+1)
Lab 38 (-3)
Green 8 (+3)
Lib Dems 7 (+1)
Other 5 (-2)1,056 GB adults interviewed by phone 29th Jan – 4th Feb, 2021. Changes from December. More to follow.
— Keiran Pedley (@keiranpedley) February 8, 2021
I would advise caution about over-interpreting this Green surge. Although 8% is a good polling result, we need to remember this is most likely, at least in part, statistical noise. A poll released the next day by Redfield and Wilton found the Green Party on 4%, just below their average of 5% in 2021. The Green Party has been largely absent from the debate on Coronavirus, they get minimal attention on the airwaves, and pretty much everyone across the political spectrum accepts the need for green policies in some form — even the Express newspaper.
But what about the broader point, made by some, that Labour should be more, or just as, worried about leaking votes to the Greens than the Liberal Democrats or Tories?
I find it an unconvincing argument, for a few reasons.
Firstly, Labour’s vote and the Green vote are only weakly-correlated — looking at every poll between 2020 and 2021 shows only a very weak negative correlation between Labour’s vote share and the Green’s vote share, and the relationship isn’t statistically significant. Furthermore, the Greens tend to over-perform in polls relative to their eventual performance (this is not just a first-past-the-post phenomenon either — it was also true in the 2016 Scottish and Welsh devolved elections, even in the proportional regional list half of the contest).
Secondly, in the 55 seats where Labour lost to the Conservatives, only 11 of those had a Green Party vote tally which was greater than the Conservative’s majority. The Liberal Democrats managed to do this in 21 of those 55 seats. Even the Brexit Party did better, in 19 seats winning more votes than Labour lost by. Labour needs to win votes from all three of these parties to win back these seats – there is nothing uniquely special about the Green vote.
Thirdly, it is likely that winning back Green Party voters necessitates a different strategy from Labour compared to winning back voters who switched to the Conservatives. Whilst a vote is a vote, regardless of whether it comes from a 2019 Conservative, Green, or non-voter, winning back a Tory is worth twice as much as winning back a Green. Consider James Daly’s Bury North seat — won on a majority of 105 over Labour, with the Greens polling 802 votes. Labour would need to win at least 106 voters from the Green Party to defeat Daly (all other things being equal), but would need to win over just 53 Conservative voters to deny Daly his majority and turn the seat Labour again.
Overall, any panic over a Green surge is misplaced — it’s just statistical noise at the moment. Besides, any strategy which sees Starmer pursue Green voters has a huge opportunity cost — it is only by winning back Tory voters that he can reach Number 10.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat we could REALLY do with, by way of psephological analysis (and this amenity please year in, year out), is a breakdown of the income-sources of people who campaign for the Greens.
Are very many of them comfortably placed with nice pensions; or in a state-funded job (where it is almost impossible to be sacked and you never get your pay docked)?
If so, this would help explain their readiness to make energy bills soar and cars unaffordable to most &c, because – as with most measures of governance nowadays – the people making the rules never have to live with the painful parts of the sharp-edged consequences. [E.g. they get the benefits of mass immigration – cheap nannies, cooks, gardeners, cleaners – without suffering the downside costs (huge pressure on job opportunities, school and health and social housing places).]
Well said. Also, try pointing out to a Green the environmental consequences of their open borders advocacy:-
More housing, more roads, more offices, more factories, more schools, more hospitals, more prisons, more airstrips, more concrete.
Then sit back and watch the steam coming out of their ears.
I agree with your theme, but I only wish the steam-manifestation would occur. That would mean they were having to connect the dots of their policies and perceive, however imperfectly, their loopy logic.
My fear and strong suspicion is, that they are (like hardline Remainers and chronic EUphiles) absolutely armour-plated in their minds against absorbing any factual point or rational remonstrance that stultifies their phony religion.
On reflection, you’re right. I actually tried out the above line of reasoning on Molly Scott Cato, who was the Southwest’s Green MEP until Brexit. This particular Oxford PPE graduate was sadly incapable of engaging with my argument on any rational level. The cognitive dissonance was deafening.
Oxford PPE is in my book a DISqualification.
It stands to reason.
How can anybody have been through a rigorous intellectual discipline and acquired important knowledge from a 3-year degree course which combines Politics, Philosophy and Economics?
It’s like some fanciful idea of a preposterous European Languages degree which gives its students smatterings from each of those tongues but no deep engagement with any single one.
[“Can you actually speak Italian, Spanish, German, French and Dutch, Miss Higginbottom?”
“Well, I know how to say ‘Hello’ and ‘Goodbye’ in each of those languages.”
“Great. Become a Cabinet minister. Most of them have this sort of training.”]
Unfortunately, a career in politics does not require any specific skills or aptitudes. There are no job descriptions, no requirement to match oneself against a detailed person spec and no psychometric tests. Imo, Oxford Uni is vastly overrated, especially when it comes to PPE. Its tutors seem to teach groupthink and deference above all else.
Graduating in PPE should certainly constitute an automatic disqualification from standing for any elective office. Almost as bad as graduating in gender studies.
Greens are largely innumerate as well as finding it difficult to join the dots.
Perhaps Starmer could kneel before a wind turbine. That’ll fix it.
by taking his head off?
At the very least, no sane woman will be voting Green. So if they gain on one side, they owe on another.
Conservatives better move over and make room for a lot of women who’ve had it with the toxic and vicious sexism of the modern leftists.
No as they are both rubbish