More in Common research has consistently found that nature and green spaces are one of the largest sources of pride for Britons in their local area, that they care deeply about protecting the countryside and are opposed to planning reforms which pit nature against development.

There can be no doubts over Britons’ love for nature and wildlife. But there is an assumption held by many in Westminster that this love for nature and wildlife sits separately from how Britons vote. As a result many politicians think nature should not be a priority for those running, or seeking to run, national governments and local councils.

Amid a Summer of successive heatwaves, wildfires and droughts in which Britons have seen their natural environment under strain, More in Common has partnered with five of Britain’s largest nature conservation charities to build an understanding of the politics of nature in Britain.

Based on a survey of 2,006 Britons in August and three focus groups of swing voters in the constituencies of Makerfield, Dorking and Horley and Enfield North, this research demonstrates that across the political spectrum, Britons’ love for nature runs deep. Politicians should be cautious of failing to recognise this in policy presentation and design.

Key findings include:

Britons love and care for nature, but they feel it is under threat and are worried about nature’s decline in Britain.

Britons’ love for nature extends across the political spectrum. While many make the link between climate change and nature, those who are more sceptical about climate action still care deeply about protecting nature and wildlife.

Britons reject the binaries that many commentators and campaigners sometimes pit nature on one side of. They think that the government is capable of both protecting nature and giving other significant priorities, like the cost of living, the attention they deserve. They don’t see the protection of nature as being in conflict with development. But when politicians do force them to confront a trade-off, they firmly side with nature protection over development.

Britons feel that politicians and political parties aren’t doing enough to protect wildlife and nature. Most feel this is an issue those in power don’t care about.

Through a conjoint experiment we demonstrate that politicians’ views on nature protection, if known, actively shape voters’ perceptions. There is a real electoral risk for politicians deemed to be soft on the protection of nature. The report sets out the electoral risks and opportunities this raises for each of Britain’s five major political parties:

• For Labour, the research shows that the last government’s planning reforms were among their most unpopular policies. While awareness of these reforms is low, if this were to change, it could bring meaningful negative electoral consequences.
• For Reform UK, the research shows that while the party’s anti-net zero stance commands support among their voters, they do have strong expectations nature protection. Perceptions of Reform and Nigel Farage as not caring about nature represent an electoral Achilles’ heel.
• For the Conservative Party, the research shows that while their voters may be split on net zero, they are united in their care for nature. The party’s failure to articulate its vision in this space could restrict its recovery, particularly in the ‘Blue Wall.’
• For the Liberal Democrats the research shows intense importance of nature for their voters and suggests that a failure to communicate the party’s policies and solutions on nature protection represent a missed opportunity to build a national brand and purpose for the party.
• For the Green Party, the research shows that despite their shift in emphasis under Zack Polanski’s leadership, care for nature and wildlife is still seen as the party’s core strength. This suggests the party should seek to ensure its newly widened focus builds on rather than replaces this.