Up next in 10
City AM's Editor in Chief reacts to the Green Party's comments on his column.
In his recent leader column Christian wrote "Polanski’s simplistic economic analysis makes for a simple wish list, including taxing the oil and gas companies out of existence; nationalising utilities; slapping wealth taxes on the rich; introducing rent controls; and spending money like a drunken sailor."
Find out what the Greens had to say in response.
Get more of City AM 👇
🌐 http://www.cityam.com
X(formerly Twitter): http://twitter.com/CityAM
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cityam
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/city_am
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/cityam
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
On page two of City A.M. today, I
0:02
suggested that the economic policies of
0:05
Zack Polanski and the Green Party
0:08
are popular and dangerous.
0:11
Uh, and Zack Polanski has hit back.
0:13
Welcome to the Week in Business with me,
0:15
Christian May.
0:19
Right, and let me set the scene.
0:23
I started my column in City A.M. today
0:25
by suggesting that Zack Polanski was
0:27
right about a number of things when the
0:30
Green Party leader
0:31
set out his economic vision yesterday.
0:33
And he said that too many people feel
0:35
like they have to run in order just to
0:37
stay where they are, and that is right.
0:39
He said that too many people simply
0:41
don't have capacity to pay for a holiday
0:44
or put money aside, and he's right about
0:46
that, too. Um, his diagnosis
0:51
made a lot of sense, but of course, you
0:52
might not be surprised to learn that
0:54
that we diverge
0:55
when when he gets on to talking about
0:57
how he would fix these problems. Now, I
0:59
spend a lot of time in this chair and in
1:01
this newspaper talking about how I think
1:03
I would fix those problems, or certainly
1:05
my thoughts on how the government is
1:06
trying to go about fixing the problems,
1:09
the problems of
1:11
declining living standards, of the tax
1:12
burden, of the problems of excessive
1:15
regulation and taxation
1:18
on us as individuals and indeed as
1:20
businesses and as an economy. But, Zack
1:22
Polanski set out his economic vision,
1:25
and it's one that includes all sorts of
1:28
things that I think, and I wrote today,
1:30
would bankrupt and impoverish this
1:32
country and would actually be
1:33
catastrophic for living standards. But,
1:35
that's not to say I don't recognize the
1:37
political wisdom of the arguments he's
1:39
making. But, when he says that a day-one
1:42
priority of a Green Party government
1:44
would be the massive introduction of
1:46
huge wealth taxes, I think that would
1:48
just be ridiculously harmful. I think
1:51
there is no evidence anywhere in the
1:53
world that suggests that would do
1:54
anything other than send a signal.
1:56
Indeed, he said himself that would send
1:58
a very clear message. Well, certainly
1:59
would. It would send a very clear
2:00
message that this is not the country to
2:02
come and build a business, grow a
2:04
business, make money, be successful,
2:06
employ people. So, that would be
2:08
obviously quite disastrous. He talks
2:11
about his plans to pull Britain out of
2:15
the influence of the bond market as if
2:17
you can just wave a wand and engineer
2:19
those sorts of
2:22
benign conditions. And he talked about
2:24
his ambitions to nationalize large parts
2:28
of
2:29
the infrastructure and utilities sector.
2:31
Again, I recognize the problems in that
2:33
sector. I recognize the political appeal
2:35
of saying that that's what you're going
2:36
to do.
2:37
But it's wealth taxes he wants to
2:39
increase taxes left, right, and center,
2:41
of course. He wants to equalize the
2:43
rates of income tax with capital gains
2:45
tax. He wants to expand national
2:46
insurance contributions to investment
2:48
income. And we've heard all this before.
2:50
This this is Jeremy Corbyn economics.
2:53
And it has a new face.
2:55
It has new packaging in the form of the
2:56
Green Party. And I do recognize that
2:59
it's pretty popular among a large number
3:01
of people, which is why I've
3:03
acknowledged that in my column.
3:05
I just think it would be economically
3:07
ruinous. An entire economic strategy
3:11
based on increasing taxes, nationalizing
3:14
businesses, regulating left, right, and
3:17
center,
3:18
rationing capital and land and energy.
3:23
To coin a phrase from Simon French here
3:25
in the city,
3:26
it's entirely the wrong direction for
3:29
any kind of country or economy
3:31
that that wants to grow
3:34
and to to enjoy the benefits of economic
3:36
growth, which should be the absolute
3:38
centerpiece of any government's agenda.
3:40
Whatever it is you want to then do with
3:42
the benefits of that growth, you need to
3:44
start from that point. And I think that
3:45
the Green Party's economic policies
3:47
would would completely and utterly
3:49
growth in this country. There
3:51
was one thing, by the way, that he said
3:53
which I do agree with, um, which is when
3:55
he he detailed to talk about, um,
3:58
private ownership and private equity
4:00
ownership of children's services and
4:01
children's homes. And that is something
4:02
I felt for a very long time is pretty
4:04
outrageous, should have been resisted.
4:06
I'm in full agreement with him on that.
4:08
So, there you go. You see, I'm not I'm
4:09
not ripping apart his entire agenda cuz
4:11
I think he was onto something there.
4:13
But, anyway, um, he has noticed, um,
4:15
City A.M.'s column on this today. He's
4:17
taken to
4:19
X and he's throwing bit of shade um at
4:21
me. Uh, he observes, quoting my column's
4:25
headline, he said, "I said yesterday,
4:27
and this sustained project of
4:29
privatization and deregulation turned
4:31
Britain from a place which made things
4:33
people need to a place which made money
4:35
for people who own things." He's quoting
4:38
himself there. And the city said in
4:40
response, he posts a picture of my
4:43
headline, "Zac Palanski's economic
4:44
agenda is dangerous, unpopular." Well,
4:47
it's good that he's engaging. Um, I
4:49
appreciate that. The comments are
4:52
interesting. I'm not sure which of us
4:54
comes out on top. Uh, the city is right,
4:57
says someone. Well, thank you very much,
4:59
assuming he meant City A.M. "Dangerous
5:01
to tax-dodging billionaires."
5:04
Okay, well, that's not me. People liking
5:07
what they hear from Zac Palanski, a lot
5:09
of them. There's a lot of Thatcher
5:11
bashing in the replies, um, which is is
5:14
something that Zac Palanski indulged in
5:15
yesterday as well. It's dangerous if
5:18
you're a billionaire. That's a fairly
5:19
common comment. "Only 1% of the country
5:22
cares what the city says."
5:25
Okay, don't think that's entirely true.
5:27
Um, please explain why you think you're
5:29
not dangerous. So, people are are
5:31
challenging him. Lots of comments about
5:34
whether you can enlarge somebody's
5:35
breasts through the process of hypnosis.
5:38
Um,
5:40
I think that refers to his previous
5:41
career. Definitely a lot of debate. Um,
5:44
I'm being being of all sorts of things.
5:46
I'm being accused of being owned by the
5:48
billionaires, just a mouthpiece for
5:50
them, etc. But this is a fairly common
5:53
There's a lot more of that. This is a
5:54
fairly common criticism that if I
5:56
disagree with the sort of radical
5:57
left-wing economic agenda of somebody
5:59
like Zack Polanski, the only possible
6:01
explanation is that I'm being paid to
6:03
take that position.
6:04
Um let's see what what other people say
6:06
here. Amazing how all the rich and
6:07
greedy don't want life to be better for
6:10
everyone else. Well,
6:11
is that what I'm saying at all? No.
6:13
Indeed, I recognize that um lots of
6:16
things have gone quite wrong over a long
6:17
period of time. And what I'm disagreeing
6:19
with Mr. Polanski on is his proposed
6:21
solution.
6:22
Okay, yeah, revolution, let's bring in
6:24
the fightback starts. See, I don't know
6:26
if this that one's aimed at me or Mr.
6:27
Polanski.
6:28
CTM has long joined in the corrupt
6:30
attacks on Corbyn and has sabotaged our
6:33
democracy.
6:34
Okay, um
6:36
if that's the way you want to see it.
6:38
Yeah, okay. Okay, yeah. Let's look at
6:39
the Green Party's record in Brighton.
6:41
The Greens put 40 million quid into a
6:43
loss-making scheme. The council now has
6:45
a shortfall of 50 million quid. And
6:48
that's your Green Party economics. Well,
6:49
okay, I can't verify that on the spot.
6:51
Good debate kicking off. I'm glad that
6:54
Zack has engaged. I stand by all my
6:57
observations. I think it is important
7:00
for people in politics and in policy and
7:02
in the media to recognize why a lot of
7:05
his prescriptions are proving to be
7:06
popular. And they are because he's
7:08
polling at 19% which is above the Labour
7:11
Party according to YouGov's most recent
7:13
poll. There is every chance that you
7:15
know, a few dozen Green MPs could form
7:17
part of some sort of coalition,
7:19
left-wing coalition government after the
7:21
next election. So, yeah, he needs to be
7:23
scrutinized and people need to be able
7:25
to debate the merits of of the policies.
7:27
I don't think
7:29
social media X is necessarily the right
7:31
platform for that, entertaining as it
7:33
was.
7:34
But those are my points. Zack Polanski's
7:36
economic policies are both popular and
7:39
dangerous. I think that's an important
7:41
and interesting dynamic. Um and I will
7:43
invite him in here to join me for a much
7:47
longer and doubtless good-natured
7:49
conversation. That is going to be it
7:51
from me this week. Join me again next
7:53
week and in the meantime stay up to date
7:55
and in the know on the City AM app and
7:57
on cityam.com.
#News