Manifesto Check: top Green Party policies

Welcome to The Conversation’s Manifesto Check, where academics subject each party’s election manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny. The result will be a complete guide to the factual accuracy and plausibility of policies relating to health, education, the economy, and more. Here is what our experts had to say about the Green Party’s top policies. Follow the links for further analysis.

Immigration

Simon McMahon, Research Fellow at Coventry University

The Greens have set themselves apart from the dominant discourse on immigration. Political leaders over recent years have responded to surveys which show people to have a persistently negative view of immigration. As a result, the political debate has typically focused on the number of migrants (and whether this can be reduced), the impacts of migration (particularly the economic costs) and the (in)effectiveness of government attempts to control migration.

Against this backdrop, the Green manifesto has offered a distinctive message which states that “migration is a fact of life”. Whilst often a response to international inequalities, climate change, war and conflict, immigration is also, the party states “much of the time … voluntary, is on a relatively small scale and is a positive benefit for all concerned”.

However, by running against the mainstream on such a contested political issue, it remains to be seen whether the party’s proposals will be seen as providing a credible option.

Read more here.

Education

Daniel Muijs, Professor of Education at University of Southampton

The Green education manifesto proposes some radical changes to the current educational landscape. But the measures proposed do not come cheap; and this holds true for schools, early years, and further education alike.

Based on my calculations, the costed elements of these three parts of the manifesto add up to more than £19 billion of extra spending a year. This represents an increase of almost 20% to this year’s education budget, which stood at £98 billion. What’s more, the uncosted reforms are likely to add a significant amount on top of that.

Simon Burgess, Professor of Economics at University of Bristol

The Greens manifesto is clear on what sorts of schools the party does not like, but is imprecise on some of the mechanisms to eliminate them. Academies and Free schools are to be “integrated” into the local authority system. This might mean giving schools the same sorts of capabilities as academies (as Labour proposes) or removing those capabilities from academies, which is unfeasible and undesirable. Grammar schools are also to be “integrated” (“abolished”), which is a positive step as it will eliminate one source of inequality.

Read more here.

Environment and Energy

Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics at Cardiff University, and Ian Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics at Plymouth University

There’s little doubt that these pledges are ambitious and have strong academic pedigrees. Ecological tax reform, for instance, draws heavily on the ideas of Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, whose notion of shifting the burden of taxes from labour to pollution was deployed widely in Germany in 1990s and 2000s. Similarly, the idea of introducing carbon quotas for each individual and business in the UK regardless of wealth, with trading of allowances has been much discussed in recent years.

The commitments to energy efficiency and a wholesale shift from fossil fuels and nuclear to renewables – and the rejection of fracking – reflect Green principles but may be expensive and the ability of renewables to provide enough base-load energy remains hotly debated (see article by Mark Diesendorf in The Conversation and Jon Samseth in Environmental Development).

However, the Greens’ pledges are only likely to hold much sway if the party wins enough seats to secure a negotiating berth alongside the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru in the event of a hung parliament. Current predictions by Election Forecast are that it will hold Brighton Pavilions but not secure any more seats, despite possibly capturing 5% of the overall vote.

Read more here.

Simon Burgess receives funding from ESRC, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Department for Education, but this article does not reflect the views of the research councils.

Daniel Muijs, Hugh Compston, Ian Bailey, and Simon McMahon do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.