A significant internal rift has opened within Labour's broader movement after the head of the influential Fabian Society thinktank labelled the Green party a political 'threat' that must be countered. The intervention has sparked a fierce backlash from Labour MPs and supporters who argue that attacking the Greens, particularly over their popular wealth tax proposal, is both a moral and electoral mistake.
Fabian Society chief brands Greens a 'fantasy' threat
The controversy began when Joe Dromey, the chief executive of the Fabian Society, argued in a Guardian article published on 31 December that the Labour leadership should treat the Green party and Reform UK as representing 'twin populisms'. Dromey dismissed the Green party's flagship policy for a wealth tax as offering 'fantasy solutions' to the UK's economic challenges.
This stance has been robustly challenged by Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East. In a letter to the Guardian, Burgon stated that Dromey 'could not be more wrong'. He highlighted that a wealth tax on assets over £10m is a policy supported by eight in 10 Labour voters and is now backed by large numbers of Labour MPs.
The £50bn case for a wealth tax
Burgon laid out a detailed economic argument countering Dromey's claims. He proposed that a 2% annual tax on assets over £10m could raise approximately £24bn. This sum, he argued, could be significantly increased to around £50bn by equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates and imposing a windfall tax on bank super-profits.
'This would not only provide vital resources to support people still hit hard by the cost of living crisis and to fund our public services,' Burgon wrote. 'It would also send a clear signal that a Labour government is prepared to act against our broken economic model.' He emphasised that with living standards for the majority stagnating since the 2008 financial crash, Labour must embrace redistribution.
A political warning from Labour's heartlands
Beyond the economic argument, critics warn that Dromey's confrontational approach is a dangerous political strategy. Burgon pointed out that Labour is currently losing more voters to the Greens and to non-voters than it is to Reform UK. Alienating progressive voters, he cautioned, risks inadvertently opening the door to victories for Reform in certain constituencies.
This view was echoed by other correspondents. Adam Osborne, a voter from Bristol, argued that the Green party's appeal, particularly to younger voters, lies in the 'positivity' of deputy leader Zack Polanski and the party's clear stance on tackling wealth inequality. Osborne contrasted this with Labour's post-election 'doom-mongering' about the economy, suggesting that after years of austerity, many are seeking 'a glimmer of hope'.
John Gray from York offered a succinct summary of the political shift, noting: 'There can be no greater proof of Zack Polanski’s successful cut-through than that the Fabian Society now sees the Green party as a threat.'
The inequality argument at the core
Central to the debate is the issue of extreme wealth concentration. Osborne's letter highlighted that the top fifth of the population now owns two-thirds of the UK's wealth, a level of inequality nearing Victorian extremes. The Green party's wealth tax proposal, he suggested, acts as a 'signpost' to their priority of addressing this deep-seated issue—a clear policy contrast with Labour's current cautious platform.
The collective message from the critics is clear: rather than attacking the Green party for its policies, the Labour movement and the Fabian Society should heed the warning they represent. The growing support for a wealth tax and for a more hopeful, redistributive agenda indicates a section of the electorate that Labour cannot afford to lose if it wishes to secure a stable, progressive majority in the future.
