DANIEL HANNAN: Toxic Greens made this the most divisive and dangerous by-election in British history

This is how democracies dissolve.

Long after the Green Party’s victory in the Gorton and Denton by-elections is forgotten, the campaign and the precedent it set will continue to reshape our politics.

We are Balkanizing our country, moving beyond our primary political identifier, citizenship, and instead relating to each other as members of hostile tribes whose territories overlap.

The Green Party’s stance ahead of yesterday’s by-election should take the party beyond the parameters of democratic morality.

Separatist, sectarian and ready to fuel Muslim grievances against Israel and India, former eco-activists have abandoned the pretense of appealing to voters as British citizens.

At one point their candidate, Hannah Spencer, told Reform rival Matt Goodwin that the Manchester Arena bomb happened “because people like you divide people”.

The Greens did not start this. Labor MP Jeevun Sandher, who is of Sikh descent, complained about the ‘dog whistle’ in the Greens byelection video in Urdu, which featured a photo of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer shaking hands with his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, a widely unpopular figure in Islamic communities.

It had apparently slipped Sandher’s mind that Labor had done the same thing in a by-election in Yorkshire five years ago, with the caption ‘Don’t risk a Tory MP who isn’t on your side’ next to a photo of Boris Johnson with Modi.

Does this really need to be explained? No democracy can thrive if its people do not have a common identity and common commitment.

Multinational regimes (Habsburgs, Ottomans, Soviets) existed over the years, but they survived only as long as they remained autocratic.

As soon as their people were given the right to vote, they were divided into their own ethnicities.

What is happening here is much more criminal. We have gone from being a harmonious nation where almost everyone accepts certain norms (equality before the courts, parliamentary democracy, religious pluralism, freedom of expression) to a nation where we teach groups of our own citizens to be separate and resentful.

We could have handled immigration differently, with more manageable numbers. But our real mistake was to turn our back on British patriotism.

In the 20th century, most settlers arrived in Britain in a positive mood. People don’t abandon their families and languages ​​to go to places they hate.

But we taught their children that Britain was greedy, shameful and racist. No wonder some turn against the country of their birth.

Labor has long promoted such a narrative for partisan gain among ethnic minority communities and can hardly complain when others, particularly the Greens and independents in Gaza, take it further.

The Greens campaigned largely on two issues: the removal of immigration controls and hostility towards Israel.

Why these problems? Because they are uniting the remnants of the Greens’ previous base, which viewed the concept of discrimination between citizens and non-citizens as somehow racist, with new Muslim voters.

“We tried to appeal to people from all backgrounds,” Greens deputy leader Mothin Ali said when asked about the Urdu video. ‘This is about inclusivity.’

It’s an odd word to use to campaign in a language that 19 in 20 British citizens don’t understand.

The Greens did not start this. Sikh Labor MP Jeevun Sandher complained about the ‘whistling sound’ of a Green campaign video in Urdu (pictured); but it had clearly slipped his mind that five years earlier, at another by-election, Labor had done exactly the same thing.

Ali announced his victory in the 2024 local elections in Leeds with the words ‘We will raise the voice of Gaza! We will raise the voice of Palestine! Allahu Akbar!’

On the day of the October 7 abomination, he recorded a clip in which he argued that ‘Palestinians have the right to resist the occupying forces’ and that everyone should ‘support the right of indigenous people to fight back’.

As a second-generation Briton, does he realize how dangerous it is to encourage ‘native people to fight’?

The reaction risks a return to civic liberalism and a renewed emphasis on individual rights.

He can also be collectivist and self-pitying, but in the opposite direction.

Why do leftists play this game? Do the Greens think their new voters will embrace the rest of their policies? Do they think Manchester Muslims are clamoring for puberty blockers, ‘gender-affirming care’ and the legalization of all drugs?

Of course not. It’s a simple numbers game.

The Greens’ loss of interest in the environment isn’t just because it’s hard to leave Ed Miliband behind; The reason is that it cannot garner as many votes as campaigning for immigration and against Israel.

What the French call ‘Islamo-gauchisme’ (Islamo-leftism) is inherently negative.

The only thing that unites environmentalists with Islamists is discontent with the West in general and Israel in particular.

Each such alliance resulted in the absorption of the first party, the white Leftists, by the second party.

Is there an alternative? Yes. Respectable parties should address British Muslims as exactly that: British.

They should recognize that many Green and Labor voters here support conservative parties in their countries of origin, where feelings of victimization are not encouraged.

They should highlight the values ​​that encouraged millions of British Muslims to volunteer in two wars.

The best way to beat a bad idea is to use a better idea. And if there’s a better idea than an open society based on property rights and personal freedom, I haven’t heard of it yet.

Lord Hannan President of Kingsclere Free Trade Institute.