Review - The Critique of Commodification: Moving towards a use-value society?

 

Written by Andreas Bieler and first published at Trade unions and global restructuring

In his new book The Critique of Commodification – Contours of a Postcapitalist Society (OUP, 2021) Christoph Hermann critical investigates the concept of commodification and relates the associated dynamics to current political economy developments. Importantly, he demonstrates how production for profit instead of human needs results in enormously harmful consequences for humanity and nature alike. In this blog post, I will discuss some of the key contributions of this highly important book. 

Hermann’s first major contribution is that he clarifies the concept of commodification. While often used and referred to in academic literature, to date there has been no systematic analysis and outline of it. Importantly, rather than adopting a moral or pragmatic critique of commodification, he firmly adopts a Marxist, historical materialist position acknowledging the problems resulting from all forms of commodification. ‘While the exchange of labor for money may be morally questionable, for materialists it is the capitalist application of labor power to increase surplus value that makes it most objectionable’ (P.12). 

By drawing directly on the work of Karl Marx, he distinguishes between use value, the satisfaction of needs on one hand, and exchange value or market value on the other, which is geared towards the maximization of profit. ‘Usually it is competition and the profit motive that makes sure that market value comes to dominate use value’ (P.28). Sub-categories of commodification include formal, real and fictitious commodification, further clarifying our understanding about processes of commodification as a whole. 

Production for maximising profits, i.e. the production of commodities, comes however with a heavy price. ‘The main threat,’ Hermann argues, ‘is the transformation of our livelihoods, including the destruction of the ecological base of human life and flourishing’ (P.XI). By relegating human needs to a secondary role, ‘commodity production has become an obstacle to urgently needed social and ecological transformation – including, for example, a more sustainable transportation system’ (P.38). In other words, commodification is deeply harmful to human beings and nature alike. 

Hermann’s second major contribution is that he unravels in detail the various political-economic processes, through which commodification takes place, including privatization, liberalization, marketization, New Public Management and austerity. New Public Management is an interesting example of fictitious commodification. Rather than relying on markets and the profit motive, here ‘commodification is based on the introduction of quasi-markets, forcing different parts of the same organization to compete with each other’ (P.38). 

Constant performance measurement and turning citizens into consumers are key strategies in this respect (P.54). Working in Higher Education in the UK, I can confirm that this has become part of our daily working practices due to restructuring over recent years. 

The consequences of commodification are dire. Needs which are not backed by purchasing power are being neglected. In many countries, if you cannot pay, your water will be turned off for example. There is a focus on producing those commodities, which secure the highest profits and short-term profits are generally prioritised over long-term sustainability. The quality of services is sacrificed for profitability and products become standardised and homogenised. 

Essential goods have been turned into items of speculation with at times disastrous consequences for people. As a result of the financialisation of agricultural production, for example, ‘world food prices rose by 83 per cent between 2005 and 2008, with corn prices nearly tripling. Rice prices increased by 70 percent, and wheat prices by 127 percent. Growing food prices, in turn drove at least 40 million more people in the developing world into hunger’ (P.87). As commodification reaches its social, political, systemic and ecological limits, human beings’ very survival is endangered. 

Hermann, however, does not stop at defining processes of commodification and highlighting their disastrous consequences. By turning to ‘use value’, he also points to potential, collective ways out of existential crises. The role of nature is key, when illustrating the move from market value to use value. ‘While nature has little if any (marginal) utility, it has an enormous use value. At the same time, nature’s use value is inherently collective: it provides the collective basis of life and human flourishing’ (P.119). 

Hence, a use-value society can provide the basis of moving from production for profit to production focused on the satisfaction of human needs. ‘A use-value society is a collective project, driven by the development of collective capacities and open to innovation and technological progress with technology serving human needs rather than profit maximization’ (P.152).

Hermann identifies three elements that ‘are crucial for the promotion of use value: democratization, sustainability, and solidarity’ (P.135). In order to ensure a shift towards production for the satisfaction of needs, the economy must be democratised including two key elements. ‘On the one hand, the shift toward self-managed enterprises, and on the other hand, the introduction of democratic planning’ (P.141). When it comes to sustainability, Hermann mirrors to some extent arguments from the degrowth literature, when he suggests that ‘what is needed is an economic contraction in the Global North, making space for some material improvement in the South (P.147). 

Solidarity, in turn, is crucial as the opposite of (capitalist) competition. Solidarity prioritises the collective good over individual gains. Ultimately, ‘putting common goals before individual interests is not only important for winning concessions from capital; it is also crucial for tackling the ecological crisis’ (P.151). 

Importantly, this use-value society is not something, which could only be established after a full-scale transformation of our current capitalist political economy sometime in the distant future. The transformation can start here and now building up incrementally over time. As Hermann concludes his book, ‘positive experience with growing islands of use-value orientation in the sea of profit maximization can, hopefully, pave the way for systemic change, ending capitalism and commodification – and tackling the ecological crisis. 

In this sense, a use-value society can also be seen as a first step, or transitory phase, in the long journey to an ecologically sustainable socialism’ (P.157).  

This is clearly a major intervention in critical scholarship, linking up well theoretical reflections with concrete suggestions for activism. A must-read for everyone interested in progressive ways out of crisis. 

Andreas Bieler is Professor of Political Economy at University of Nottingham/UK

Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk

Personal website: http://andreasbieler.net

Learning to Grow Movements Out of Organizations

Written by Laurence Cox and first published at ICNC

If activists are resisting an incinerator in one town and the neighboring town is resisting a megadump, how can they get beyond just fighting their own battles in isolation? How can they link up those different struggles and push for environmental justice? And how can they work together with other groups to challenge the underlying economics and incentives that produce waste in the first place?

When activists talk about issues like climate collapse or the rise of the far right, global inequalities or femicide, they don’t expect the issues to solve themselves. But the kind of agency that activists need to tackle these kinds of problems is far bigger than any individual organization or campaign.

If we share each other’s outrage or critiques of the status quo, we might feel like part of a movement, but without shared action and strategy towards systemic change, there isn’t a movement. Learning to work together across difference is a major milestone. The skills to make this happen are part of what I call the “ABC of activism” in my book Why Social Movements Matter (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018).

The ABC includes connecting up campaigns in different places and countries. It embraces intersectional work tackling inequalities of class, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, ability/disability, etc. within our organizations. It also comprises forging both immediate coalitions and strategic alliances between movements around different issues and between different communities in struggle. This means thinking more deeply, about the structural and systemic problems we are facing, and more strategically, about how to build the power we need for the change we want.

Beyond organizational patriotism

In order to go from an organization to a movement, activists have to overcome what German speakers call “organizational patriotism” (Organisationspatriotismus, a generic term that has been applied to everything from strategic planning to business theory). Organizational patriotism includes narrowly prioritizing your own organization’s interests over all others. It means siloed social media work (not signal-boosting related organizations) and training programs that fail to mention other organizations working on the same issues.

Organizational patriotism happens when organizations neglect networking and alliance-building. There are many other organizational forms and practices that keep us acting and thinking in separate boxes—as if our organization alone could do it all.

If we are serious about overcoming the problems we face, what we ultimately need—as frameworks running from intersectionality to climate justice acknowledge—is very broad alliances of movements, or far larger, more diverse and internally complex movements. Becoming able to act as “the peace movement”, “the Black community”, “the climate movement”, “labor” and so on is a huge achievement, but not a resting point.

What can we do?

Some movements have long-standing cultures of alliance-building and networking across organizations, social groups and countries. Organizations may start with experienced activists with good connections to other movements, communities and civil society actors, or stand in a tradition that values making connections. Yet many organizations don’t start from such an ideal place, and the forces of entropy and fragmentation are very powerful.

It is easy enough today to learn the technical skills of mobilizing for a campaign, building an organization, carrying out nonviolent direct action or using social media effectively. But there are fewer spaces to address the problems of organizational patriotism. And of course, organizations that aren’t having conversations about this problem are less likely to see the need to address it. So what can we do?

In earlier research about movement development, my colleagues and I asked activists how movements can build the strategic capacity to think about large-scale change over time. Two strategies that came up were:

1. Building alliances across organizations, communities and movements;
2. Creating the spaces and skills for movements to become learning agents.

A manageable way to start alliance-building is simply to hold a 90-minute meeting with a small group of people involved in your organization, your movement or your community. Name other communities, movements or organizations that are near enough—geographically, in terms of issues—that you could easily reach out to them; identify the benefits and challenges of doing so; and think about the wider basis for an alliance (geographical, thematic, in terms of which social groups are involved, etc.) And then set a realistic goal—concrete and doable—that could mark a first step towards a more strategic alliance.

Learning from and for movements

How do movements become learning agents? Three activist training networks already run pan-European projects geared to supporting activists learning to grow the movements we need for a better world. The Ulex Project’s Ecology of Social Movements course; the European Community Organizing Network’s Citizen Participation University and European Alternatives’ School of Transnational Activism already tackle this fragmentation in different ways.

Together with two researchers who helped run the National University of Ireland Maynooth’s masters in activism course (2009-2015) we are working on a year-long training program for activists and adult educators across the continent. The program includes two-week residentials framing an online course and local support networks. It is geared to supporting “transnational and transversal (across social groups and movement issues) active citizenship” and highlighting the skills and knowledge needed for this.

Like the various trainings mentioned above, the idea is to make this financially accessible on a solidarity economy basis and to ensure the workload is manageable. At the same time we expect that participants will welcome the opportunity to create some space in their work to go beyond “fire-fighting” and reflect on questions of strategic effectiveness. There is a time cost for doing this—but it is nothing compared to the costs of being permanently trapped in the endless cycle of simply reacting to crises.

Editor’s note: In addition to the above, organizations like Rhize and ICNC offer activist learning and leadership development opportunities throughout the year.

Laurence Cox is co-author of The Irish Buddhist: the Forgotten Monk who Faced Down the British Empire (Oxford University Press, 2020) and co-editor of the activist/academic journal Interface. He is Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Ireland Maynooth and has been involved in many different movements since the 1980s. 

Partygate – Tory MPs Bottle it, so now it is down to the British Public to remove Boris Johnson

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, appears to be riding out the scandal of holding lockdown parties in 10 Downing Street, in contravention of the laws in place at the time. Johnson, along with his next door neighbour, Chancellor Rishi Sunak, have received fines for one breach, with more expected to follow.

This is the first time that a serving prime minister (and Chancellor) have been found guilty of breaking the law, and I think that previous prime minister’s would have felt that they had to resign their post, but not Boris Johnson. As one of his former housemasters at Eton school reported, Johnson doesn’t think that rules apply to him. Indeed, he has pretty much made a career in politics on this basis.

In these circumstances, one might expect Tory MPs, who are well aware of how badly this whole saga has gone down with voters in their constituencies, to remove him by calling for a vote of no confidence in him, but very few have done so. I think some of them do see the importance of honesty and integrity, of which Johnson is completely lacking, but they appear to be nervous about bringing him down.

The most common reason that many are citing for their inaction, is that whilst there is the ongoing war in Ukraine, no change of leader can be contemplated. This view ignores history, where prime ministers have been changed, most notably Herbert Asquith, during in World War I, and Neville Chamberlain during in World War II. These were wars that Britain was actually fighting too, which is not the case with current conflict in Ukraine.

What real difference would it make if Johnson was replaced? None, I think. Somebody else can go around making breezy speeches, with no difference one way or the other, but many Tory MPs are taking refuge in this thinking. But this might change, and a look at previous Tory prime ministers who have been removed in recent times by their MPs, is instructive.

Margaret Thatcher, was brought down in 1990, a prime minister much more powerful and respected than Johnson, mainly over the unpopular Poll Tax policy. This led to defeat for the Tories in a byelection in Eastbourne in September 1990, normally a rock solid Tory constituency. She resigned in November of same the same year, having lost the confidence of her ministers.

Theresa May, was forced to resign in 2019, after it became clear that she would face a no confidence vote from her MPs. The Tories recorded only 8.8% of the vote in the European Parliamentary elections earlier that year. Her premiership was dogged by a failure of MPs to agree with her attempts to get a post Brexit deal from the European Union.

So, we can see that the commonest factor in Tory MPs removing their sitting prime minister, is how well they see their prospects of retaining their seats in a future general election. Tory MPs were always well aware of Johnson’ shortcomings, but recognised that he was popular with the voters, and so this trumped all else.

Which brings us to the current situation. Is Johnson still a winner? Opinion polls suggest not, with 75% of those surveyed saying that they believe the prime minister to be a liar. The breaching of lockdown rules touches the public in a way that perhaps other issues do not. Most people followed the rules, and many have memories of not being able see loved ones, in some cases before these people died from Covid. They expected the people making these rules to follow them, like they did.

On 5 May local elections throughout the UK will take place. If voters reject the Tory party in huge numbers, over their outrage of the breaches of the lockdown rules, this will put pressure on Tory MPs to act, out of self-interest, if nothing else. There is also a Parliamentary byelection coming in Wakefield, a seat the Tories gained in 2019.

A harbinger of what may happen can be seen in recent local byelections. The Green party has gained two seats from the Tories over recent weeks. In Storrington and Washington and Lyme and Charmouth, they made impressive gains from the Tories. Will something similar happen in the upcoming local council elections? It may well be so.

The only way that Johnson will be forced out of office, is if the voters make it clear they are unhappy with him. At the end of the day, it is not about the integrity of the office of prime minister for Tory MPs, rather whether they think they have more chance of retaining their seats, with Johnson as prime minister.

For most people, somebody who breaks their own laws, and lies about it, is not a fit and proper person to hold the office of prime minister. It's over to you the voters, to remove this person.         

Rojava - Call for International Action-Days 26th - 28th November, 2021

 

In Kurdistan 2021 has been a year marked by resistance and struggle so far. On all fronts, from Rojava to the cities and mountains of Southern and Northern Kurdistan the Turkish fascist state has continued its attacks against the people and the freedom movement on all levels.

In Rojava the Turkish state is cutting off the water from the region, forcing demographic change in the occupied territories of Efrîn, Serêkaniyê and Girê Spî, continuously bombing Şehba, Minbic, Eyn Îsa and Til Temir and threatening new major invasions. In Şengal, Rojava and Southern Kurdistan the Turkish state is continuously targeting leaders of the resistance and civilians with killer-drones.

Since the beginning of the year the Turkish army has started a massive operation against the Medya Defense Zones, which have been guerrilla controlled regions for decades. With thousands of soldiers and mercenaries, massive use of artillery, ceaseless air-surveillance and air-raids they are trying to advance on the ground. Despite all difficulties, the daily usage of chemical weapons by the Turkish army and the KDP supporting the invasion from the other direction, for more than half a year the guerrilla has successfully resisted and held its positions.

A history of uncompromised anti-fascist resistance is being written, so many great women and men lost their lives and so many more are putting their lives on the line everyday, with one goal: Smash Turkish Fascism!

This Turkish Fascism can only operate due to the support it gets internationally. This support is sometimes open and active, sometimes hidden and passive. In any case, this support is the reason for the continuous existence of occupation, exploitation, killing and war in the region. Together we can make the AKP-MHP government fall – if we stand with the guerrilla and rise up for Rojava, if we put serious pressure on the international profiteers of the fascist regime in Turkey, then the last days of the regime will soon be counted.

Target the Occupation in Efrin

Since March 2018 Efrîn has been under Turkish occupation. Since then the Turkish state has been exploiting the wealth of Efrîn. One of the examples is olive oil from Efrîn that is being exported elsewhere in the world. Take a look at this list (https://riseup4rojava.org/face-therobbery-of-efrins-resources-and-the-responsibles) to see if and where in your country oil from Efrîn is being sold to finance Turkish occupation and Islamist gangs in the region. Now, get active and creative to stop those who take advantage from the occupation!

Target the International Weapon Industry

Many companies and governments declared in the past they would not continue selling arms to Turkey, but we have to realize that many weapons and different kinds of advanced war-technology are still being given to Turkey. Let us put an end to this and Block, Disturb and Occupy the Weapon Industries places and offices! To do so, have a look at our updated Target Map and take action: https://riseup4rojava.org/take-action/  and https://riseup4rojava.org/weaponindustry/

Target the Political and Diplomatic Support for Turkish Fascism

The Erdoğan regime takes its legitimacy, which it never had or lost long ago among the people of Turkey and Kurdistan, from international diplomatic and political support. Wherever you live, there are some political factions, institutions and parties which either openly or covertly support Erdoğan and the Turkish fascist state. Denounce them, confront them and make them regret their collaboration with a fascist regime!

Denounce Turkish Army Use of Chemical Weapons

In the past there have been several occasions on which the Turkish state has been accused of using chemical weapons, but since the beginning of this year they have started to do so on a daily basis. The HPG guerrilla has called more than once for an international investigation on this topic and international condemnation.

It is obvious that the use of chemical gas against the guerrilla is for one reason and that is the inability of the Turkish army to advance on the ground by using common weaponry. To put an end to this, let us support the call of the movement for an international condemnation. At the same time support the guerrilla more directly and raise money for gas-masks: https://widnet.org/

Stand with the Guerrilla and the Resisting People

The guerrilla, the YPG and YPJ, the people in Rojava and Northern Kurdistan are resisting with everything they have. We have to see, that every defeat there will negatively influence all of our struggles, but on the other hand every victory there will strengthen our struggles against fascism and for freedom all around the world.

To stand with the guerrilla means to stand with PKK

The 27th November marks the 43rd anniversary of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) foundation. We congratulate all fighting comrades and the people of Kurdistan and call on everybody to show their solidarity with the PKK on this day. Their struggle is a legitimate one for self-determination and freedom that deserves support from oppressed people around the world.

Under these topics we call on everybody to take action in their countries on the 26th, 27th and 28th November this year. Be creative! Block, Disturb and Occupy! Demonstrate and Protest! Target the profiteers of the war! Show your solidarity with the anti-fascist resistance in Kurdistan!

Together we will #SmashTurkishFascism, we will #RiseUp4Rojava and we will #StandwithGerîla!

Coordination of #RiseUp4Rojava – Campaign

 Internationalist Commune of Rojava

Citizens’ Assemblies Won’t Save the Planet

Written by Callum McGeown and first published at Green European Journal

Citizens’ assemblies are receiving increased recognition as a way to ensure greater public participation in shaping government responses to the planetary crisis. The interest reflects a growing perception that the governments of representative democracies are either unwilling to or incapable of implementing the radical measures necessary to decarbonise their economies. Indeed, findings steadily report emissions trajectories in line with the worst-case scenarios set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement. After a year of record-breaking wildfires, droughts, and flooding, the evidence is tangible.

The calls for citizens’ assemblies have come from climate activists and politicians alike. However, as transformative as they may be for decision-making, they are an insufficient fix for the democratic deficits that frustrate confronting the interconnected crises of climate breakdown, ecosystem collapse, and social inequality. To stand a chance of achieving a timely and just post-carbon transition, demands for democratisation must focus on the state and the economy.

What are citizens’ assemblies?

A citizens’ assembly is a group of people brought together to learn about, deliberate, and make recommendations on specific issues or proposals. The assemblies are independent and established through a process of sortition whereby individuals are randomly selected to form mini-publics roughly reflective of the wider population according to various criteria (such as age, race, gender, region, and income).

Their conspicuous presence in the imaginary of contemporary climate politics is largely attributable to the activist group Extinction Rebellion (XR), which identifies going “beyond politics” through the creation of a citizens’ assembly on climate and ecological justice as one of its core demands. The rationale is not without merit, as placing ordinary citizens within decision-making structures can help mitigate against the influence of powerful lobbies, money, short-termism, and professional political ambition on the climate- inert “politics as usual”.

Much emphasis is placed on an initial learning phase made up of expert testimonials and presentations, Q&As, and supplementary resources. XR and the wider climate movement have homed in on this with good reason, given the potential to ensure that the incontrovertible science and gravity of climate breakdown can be communicated to an audience without the distortion of mis- and disinformation.

This learning phase aims to facilitate respectful and factually informed deliberation that incorporates members’ various interests and perspectives. The assembly’s final task is to agree on and present its recommendations for review, uptake, or dismissal.

Lessons from Ireland

The Irish case is often cited as an example of how citizens’ assemblies can navigate contentious issues and clear pathways for transformation. Convened in 2016, Ireland’s 99-member citizens’ assembly was tasked with making recommendations on complex constitutional and political problems in five areas: abortion, ageing population, fixed- term parliaments, referendums, and climate change.

The assembly was organised in large part in response to increasing domestic and international pressure related to Ireland’s constitutional amendment on abortion. By granting equal rights to life to the mother and the unborn, Ireland’s Eighth Amendment had banned termination under almost all circumstances for over 30 years. Caught between demands for women’s rights and the “pro-life” social conservativism of a historically dominant Catholic Church, electoral politics had proved incapable of resolving the matter.

Climate change represented another – albeit very different – problem that Irish politicians had long preferred not to address. In failing to come close to emissions reduction targets, Ireland had been labelled one of the EU’s worst performers on climate. The nature of Ireland’s post-economic-crisis recovery made matters worse: from 2011, Ireland’s agricultural and transport sectors were targeted as drivers of economic growth, and emissions grew in parallel.¹ 

Issues of political legitimacy were, and continue to be, exacerbated by Ireland’s economic dependency on carbon-intensive agriculture, as well as the enduring cultural significance of farming in the country.

The decision to institutionalise participation in the Citizens’ Assembly followed the perceived success of the 2012 Constitutional Convention. Indirectly the product of the independent “We the Citizens” initiative, the convention brought elected representatives and citizens together for 18 months to consider changes to Ireland’s constitution. It is best known for its recommendation on marriage equality, which resulted in a historic popular vote in May 2015 to legalise same-sex marriage.

The 2016 assembly was also to have important consequences for social justice: after its members recommended repealing the Eighth Amendment, a landmark national referendum endorsed the decision which marked a triumph for women’s rights and a significant moment of detachment – both real and symbolic – of Irish society from entrenched religious moralism.

Despite these historic advances, both the 2012 convention and the 2016 assembly were constrained in other areas by the same political obstacles they were intended to circumvent. Although the assemblies made clear recommendations on other issues, the government did not act as quickly and decisively as it did on marriage equality and abortion.

Tasked with making proposals on how to make Ireland a leader in tackling climate change, the Citizens’ Assembly proved more ambitious than expected. Its 13 recommendations ranged from steps to support the transition to electric vehicles and prioritise cycling and public transport infrastructure, to emissions taxes on agriculture and an end to state subsidies for peat extraction.

Despite the high level of consensus, the government response was disappointing. A separate parliamentary committee was established to consider the report, with a lack of clarity on the overall uptake of the proposals. Ostensibly, this was due to the difficulty of translating the complex recommendations into the kinds of binary choices suited to referendums.

The climate bind

The level of climate action required to meet international emissions targets will necessarily disrupt the political and economic status quo. Any restrictions the government imposes on a climate assembly in terms of what is put on or kept off its agenda therefore matter a great deal. More than a question of feasibility, whether an assembly’s recommendations are upheld, modified, or altogether ignored comes down to power. It is telling, for instance, that the Irish citizens’ assembly was not mandated to give recommendations on political economy. This dynamic is somewhat at odds with achieving a just transition to a post-carbon economy: unseating the socially and ecologically exploitative capitalist model definitively means putting the status quo on the table.

The 2018 gilets jaunes protests in France demonstrate the risk of taking climate action without simultaneously addressing social justice. This experience offers an important lesson: any green political project with social justice at its core must take a holistic approach to ecological transition. The scale of change demands much more of political and social forces than might be achieved with policy reforms.

No matter how radical an assembly’s recommendations, if it does not or cannot address the institutions that endorse it (and of which it is an extension) then its efficacy is inevitably constrained. The citizens’ assembly finds itself in an irreconcilable bind when it comes to climate: while it depends on state buy-in to wield political influence, to achieve the necessary changes the same state must open itself up to scrutiny, challenge, and transformation.

The crux of the problem lies in the status of the citizens’ assembly as an advisory body. Lacking legislative capabilities, these assemblies are effectively toothless; their influence over decision-making is curtailed by the state, both in terms of its prescribed mandate and uptake of the recommendations. This is not to undervalue the functions these assemblies serve as forums for learning, deliberating, and, ultimately, deepening citizen engagement with the decisions that govern their lives.

These virtues are observable in the ambitious recommendations made by Ireland’s citizens’ assembly, which influenced the government’s 2019 Climate Action Plan. However, while the plan endorses – to varying degrees – some of the measures proposed by the assembly (such as accelerating the uptake of electric vehicles and expanding renewable energy micro- generation), it notably passes over the more redistributive recommendations (in particular, taxes on Ireland’s disproportionate agricultural emissions).² 

The outcome questions the capacity for citizens’ assemblies to effectively counter the entrenched structures of political economy that shape the climate question in Ireland as elsewhere.

That is not to say that citizens’ assemblies should simply be bestowed with national-level legislative responsibilities. It would prove difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile such responsibilities with the legitimacy of a small, randomly selected body of citizens. Neither is it to say that citizens’ assemblies should not be used, full stop. It does, however, problematise citizens’ assemblies as a mechanism to address the climate crisis.

Focusing on the state

The predicament of state power may be understood through two observations. First, the efficacy of citizens’ assemblies depends on the degree to which governments buy into them as a transformative process. This has significant implications throughout, from what is on the agenda to how the issues are framed to the uptake of recommendations.

And second, despite their perceived autonomy, citizens’ assemblies may be used strategically by those in positions of power to distance themselves from difficult decisions or to pacify discontent without committing to real change. Rather than offering a solution to the democratic deficit, citizens’ assemblies may thus offer an alibi to governments that wish to appear to democratise climate action but are in fact reluctant to take meaningful steps.

Nation-states hold the power to drive radical decarbonisation, but currently, this change is nowhere in sight. The state must itself first transform to facilitate greater public scrutiny of and control over the economy and its post-carbon transition. Any project of democratisation presupposes a certain decentralisation to subordinate political authority and shape the economy according to the needs of individuals and communities. This is more likely to come as a result of pressure from large-scale social mobilisation than advisory deliberative forums.

In this sense, rather than positioning themselves as “beyond politics”, eco-social movements would be better advised to focus on the necessarily messy occupation of enlarging politics. That means breaking down the institutional and ideological divides which keep capitalism beyond the reach of democratic control, and building support both within and outside of the state (though always with the goal of its ultimate transformation).

Rather than shying away from politics, what is needed is an effective, persuasive alternative to exploitative and growth-centred neoliberal politics.

While citizens’ assemblies represent a form of participatory capacity building which should not be underestimated, so long as they are not established to transform the logic of the state, their potential will remain limited. Ireland’s citizens’ assembly shows that an informed public would savour the opportunity to instigate real change. Despite their shortcomings as an instrument of democratic reform, they offer an instructive lesson for framing the political struggle of tackling the climate crisis.

The high levels of respectful deliberation and informed collective decision-making observed in citizens’ assemblies speak to the importance of (approximate) equality as a precondition for effective participation.³ Regardless of factors such as race, gender, or class, all members are equally valued and given an equal opportunity to listen, speak, and participate.

They have equal access to information, educational resources, and opportunities to interrogate experts. Every interest or opinion is considered. These are the necessary conditions for a fair and functioning participatory democracy, and they should inform the strategic objectives of any eco-social alternative.

The fight for a climate response must therefore prioritise the redistribution of income and wealth. Key utilities and public services as well as extractive, polluting, and carbon-intensive industries should be targeted for democratic control in order to secure equitable provision and accelerate transition.

This means demanding political decentralisation and economic re-localisation to empower communities to build their own versions of a just transition while diminishing their dependency on economic centres. Once this level of agency is achieved, local contexts represent the best opportunity for forums such as citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries, and participatory budgeting.

This could help counter the alienating elements of representative politics and address the democratic deficit by opening up political and economic institutions to effective participation.

First and foremost, this means building an intersectional movement committed to non-violent struggle against all forms of exploitation and inequality. It must be prepared to fight within and beyond the state.

In this age of protest and pandemic, as injustices are increasingly laid bare, the opportunity to make inter-movement alliances should not be missed. Integral to that process is learning the lessons of respectful deliberation as the basis for effective collective action that addresses the root causes of the planetary crisis.

Notes

1 Diarmuid Torney (2020). “Ireland’s Policy Response to Climate Change: An Historical Overview”, in David Robbins, Diarmuid Torney & Pat Brereton (eds). Ireland and the Climate Crisis. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

2 Clodagh Harris (2021). “Democratic innovations and policy analysis: climate policy and Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly (2016-2018)”, in John Hogan and Mary Murphy (eds). Policy Analysis in Ireland. Bristol: Policy Press.

3 Matthew Flinders et al. (2016). Democracy Matters: Lessons from the 2015 Citizens’ Assemblies on English Devolution. The Democracy Matters Project. Available at <bit.ly/3eIR12z>.

Calum McGeown is a climate activist and PhD student of political theory at Queen’s University Belfast. His research interests include green political theory, post-growth political economy, state theory, climate breakdown, and the post-carbon transition.

Green Party Leadership Election –Exclusive Interview with Shahrar Ali

 

Candidate for Leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, Shahrar Ali talks to London Green Left Blog’s editor Mike Shaughnessy about why he is running for the leadership of the party.

Tell me a little about your background and why you are standing for the leadership of the Green Party? 

I became active in Green politics at the turn of the century around the threat from GM crops. I was part of the successful campaign to stop GM entering the agricultural system in the UK and my work took me to the heart of the European Parliament as a researcher on environmental risk assessment. It was gratifying to be part of the unit which provided parliamentarians with briefing documents which helped inform the votes for successive moratoria on GM crop regulation across the UK. That’s when I got my first taste of Green parliamentarians shaping our future for the collective good. 

I trained as a biochemical engineer before turning to philosophy and taught widely across the educational sector, with a particular interest in offering lifelong education at affordable rates. My educational background is perhaps significant to what I think I can bring to the Party at this time. Both biotechnology and philosophy have at their heart a commitment to scientific truth and rational persuasion. We need more of this in politics right now, and in the Green Party, too. I see my role as leader both to demonstrate rational argument in political debate and to do us proud on broadcast media on big, live platforms and on social media. Here’s an example of my debating with Sadiq Khan and Priti Patel on the BBC [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHe_LsR5Pg] during the 2015 general election, where we polled over a million votes. 

As former deputy leader 2014-16 I was the first BME leader of a UK parliamentary party and this added real credibility to our presentation. That’s not the best reason to vote for me, but it is a significant one, as we are sadly lacking in visible ethnic representation at all levels of the party. I helped launch Greens of Colour and whilst it has been great to see people from more diverse ethnic backgrounds coming into the party we still have much, much more to do. 

If you are elected as leader of the party, what will be your priorities? 

I will boldly make that case for immediate action on the climate and ecological emergency. It’s hard for us to get our heads round the scale of transformation required to overcome the worst of climate degradation, much of which has already been set in train. The prize for humanity is great: our continued existence. The threat of species extinction is too grave to contemplate. The emergency response to Covid-19 has shown that, with political will, much adaptation is possible. We need to harness more of that spirit in pursuit of massive reduction in our carbon consumption. We need to get on a war footing for the sake of the climate emergency. Greens have long advocated a Green new deal, which would require overhaul of the economic system and investment in renewable energy, with Green jobs to match. I say more about what this transformation might look like in my final answer. 

Secondly, we must reach out to new constituencies of voters, especially those who are feeling politically homeless due to leaders promoting, or facilitating, a hostile environment for them. I’m thinking especially of women and ex-Labour members and voters. 

Many women I have spoken to, including in our own party, have felt prevented from organising around campaigns to preserve or protect their sex-based rights. Many brilliant campaigners have in fact resigned. In any arena of equalities, if you’ve got a group of people who feel that they are affected by the claims of another group of people, that requires negotiation not imposition. In addition, in order to negotiate you need to debate, and uncover people’s assumptions, if only to work out that there’s no misunderstanding. That kind of debate and negotiating culture is in increasingly short supply, in society and in political parties. 

A further example is the conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel’s heinous policies with fake allegations of antisemitism – often fuelled by the bogus, politicised IHRA definition. It is monstrous that a lifelong antiracist of the pedigree of Corbyn was hounded out in the way he was. I, too, have had to face down antisemitism smear campaigns and recently won an IPSO ruling against the Jewish Chronicle on five counts. I am now pushing not just for rejection of the IHRA definition by our Party but adoption of the Jerusalem Declaration instead – a well-crafted statement that would help identify and tackle genuine antisemitic incidents. Greens fight racism in all its forms, including anti-Jewish racism, and this is all the more reason to advocate for definitions which are fit for purpose, not counterproductive on their own terms. 

The common thread running through these conflicts, which often become internalised in parties, is the failure to insist on mature, rational debate. Groupthink and cancel culture thrive in such conditions, often reinforced by social media bubbles. Leaders must collaborate to overcome the threat to free speech – by demonstrating it themselves and confronting Orwellian abuse of language. 

Shahrar visiting Calais Jungle camp as Deputy Leader

The COP26 conference is taking place in November, in Glasgow, what are your expectations of anything significant being agreed by participant governments? 

I have low expectations for yet another conference on the international circuit. The climate and ecological emergency is my priority: I was a founding signatory of Extinction Rebellion in 2018 and a founder member of GreensCAN. We can be absolutely clear about the twin aims of getting Greens elected and campaigning beyond the ballot box to galvanise the scale of social and political transformation required. As Greens we will continue to push for results at COP26 and also to raise awareness outside and beyond COP. 

A review of the party’s Instruments of Governance was called for and approved by Conference some 6 years ago. The "Holistic Review Commission" was set up in 2018 which aimed to deliver radical constitutional reforms. In your opinion, what are the reasons why after all this time and effort, it seems almost impossible for the party to adopt a new constitution?

A Governance Review, which was set 8 years ago in 2013, failed to deliver a new constitution by the Autumn of 2018, the end of its remit. The Holistic Review Commission which followed failed to deliver on its promises of “radical reforms” and the Spring 2021 online Special Constitutional conference ended in chaos. 

In my opinion, all attempts to modernise our constitution since 2013 have failed because they lacked any bottom-up approach in the first instance. Our members have simply not felt concerned about such internal matters nor been involved in any of those processes. Yes, conference participants approved all those initiatives, but conference is made up of self-appointed members who may not have read the conference agenda before taking part and are under no obligation to represent their local party or designated group members. Normally, that member right is an asset but sometimes it can land us in a false sense of security about genuine engagement and I think that’s what happened here. I don't think it should come as any surprise really that it has indeed proved almost impossible to draft and implement a new constitution. 

Shahrar addressing Association of Green Councillors

Identity issues, especially around gender recognition, has been hugely controversial in the party recently. What will be your approach to healing the division which has opened up in the party? 

In basing my campaign on the three crucial issues of climate emergency, women's rights, and free speech, I am confident that all of us in the Green Party are united in caring about these issues. In expressing my support for women's rights, I am in no way intending to minimise the importance of LGBTQI+ rights. I am convinced that the way forward within the Green Party – and indeed in wider society – lies in mutually respectful dialogue to ensure that everyone's concerns are heard and taken into account. 

It's unfortunately the case that there have been communication problems within the Green Party that have resulted in many people feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously. I want to encourage a culture of openness and mutual respect so that these matters, which naturally elicit strong feelings in people, can be debated in a compassionate manner. Kindness is sometimes overlooked in the heat of the moment, especially in the heat of exchanges on social media.  I hope that, if I am elected, I can help to facilitate our all working together in the Green Party to find our way forward with these complex issues. 

By tackling these communication problems we can move forward together in our united determination to face the environmental crisis that threatens us all.  The Green Party has a great contribution to make: we have to find the way to resolve our differences and pull together. 

Shahrar launching environmental leadership programme for BAME youth

What is your vision for Green party over the next few years?

We must overcome political cowardice. Outside the global Green parties few politicians have been willing to shout, “Fire!” But as Greta says, the building is on fire. Of course, shouting fire isn't enough. To avoid catastrophe we have to transform our energy, transport and farming systems. That's going to be hard and even with a just transition to a more sustainable way of life it will be uncomfortable for some. But we have to do it. 

The first climate priority for a Green government would be 'stop digging'. We have to stop making the climate problem worse so:

·       No airport expansion

·       No new roads

·       End fossil fuel subsidies

·       No gas boilers in new homes

·       All meetings between government and industry or Trade Unions (other than security matters) to be announced and minuted. 

Second - begin to build the low-carbon alternative - this is at least a ten-year programme:

·       Introduce carbon tax

·       In parallel, supplement taxation with Personal Carbon Allowances (the latter is a policy proposal coming from me to Autumn conference)

·       Expand wind power and energy development and the grid

·       Announce dates from which fossil-fuelled vehicles can't be used on UK roads (probably different dates for cars, vans, buses, HGVs, tractors, etc.)

·       Start major training programme for retrofit workers

·       Start national housing retrofit programme

·       Make Passivhaus the default standard for new buildings

·       Accelerate the development of active travel infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, after full consultation on design with disability user groups)

·       Set target for making company accounts comply with Sustainable Cost Accounting - largest first

·       Expand R&D on low-carbon technologies 

Third - start national and regional discussion of Just Transition measures with local authorities, employers’ organisations, trade unions and community groups. Develop a Just Transition support budget. 

Fourth – start a phased programme of industrial decarbonisation – probably start by expanding steel recycling and closing blast furnaces. 

The bottom line is that every sector will have to change.  There are 50 – maybe 500 – actions needed in a comprehensive, co-ordinated systemic approach.  This is just a sketch for a vast change across government, politics, economics and society.  I would be advocating for and asking Greens to set up citizens' assemblies to help to support the sea-change in thinking and behaviour required.  We need to change what is politically possible if we are do what is scientifically necessary. We need a reality check. 

Voting opens on 2 September 10am and closes 23 September 10pm.

Green Party Leadership Election –Exclusive Interview with Tina Rothery and Martin Hemingway

Candidates for Co-Leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, Tina Rothery and Martin Hemingway, talk to London Green Left Blog’s editor Mike Shaughnessy about why they are running for the leadership of the party. 

Tell me a little about your backgrounds and why you are standing for the leadership of the Green Party?

TR Lancashire is ‘home’ right now and has been for a large chunk of the past two decades, but I was born in London and at four-years-old, my family chose to migrate to Australia as part of the Assisted Passage Programme (at the time, commonly referred to as ‘£10 Poms’) before moving to Hong Kong when I was 12. I returned to the UK in my early 20s but went on to live in Luxembourg, Belgium and Spain before returning and settling in Blackpool where my sister and her family are.

My first job was as a reporter at the Hong Kong Standard newspaper and my career from then onwards, was mostly in communications. I’ve found it has always been more difficult to ‘get ahead’ in the UK and as a single-mother, worked as a waitress, hotel cleaner, barmaid, staff trainer and a multitude of other things to get food on the table and money in the meter.

The past decade, however, has been the most life-changing of all episodes in my varied life. Becoming an activist changed more than my income bracket (bare minimum), it enhanced me, broadened my views, nourished my heart and rewarded my life with a genuine purpose that isn’t about earning more, buying more, competing or focusing on interests of self. And activism ensures I’m in the best company of all.

I recently returned to education after a 40-year break (it wasn’t my strong point when I was younger) but am struggling to justify any time given to anything that isn’t dealing with the climate crisis: what point will a university degree be on an uninhabitable planet? Much will depend on what happens next. 

When Jonathan and Sian made their intentions to step-down known and it was clear we would be electing new Green Party leaders, I was disappointed to discover that those I hoped were going to stand, had decided not to. I am a little surprised myself that I decided to run for leadership, but I trust my instincts. I considered options on standing alone but I have enough self-awareness to know that I thrive best with balance and co-operation. Martin became the natural choice as a partner. Over the past seven years as a member, it was him that I would approach with questions because I knew I would always get an informed, honest answer from a man of integrity and experience. I’m truly honoured he agreed. 

MH I have 50 years of political experience gleaned as an agent in elections, as a candidate in many local elections, general elections and Euro elections – including as lead candidate, as an elected member of the ruling Labour group on Leeds City Council, the second largest local authority in the country, for 12 years. The time on Leeds City Council led to positive changes for local people, to regional roles, and a UK role as Chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities. It is difficult to summarise all that I have done in a few words.

I left Labour for various reasons, but largely because I was not New Labour – I stayed where I was and the Party moved away from me.

In the Green Party I have almost 20 years of experience in local, regional and national parties. It is difficult to underestimate the importance of this experience, At local and regional levels I have filled most roles, written constitutions and strategies, supported local parties. Nationally I spent four years on the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) and over five years on the Standing Orders Committee (SOC).

I have an understanding of the Party, good and bad, through this experience, and am very conscious of the need to have Leaders who will bring the Party together to tackle the climate emergency we are facing.

If you are elected as leaders of the party, what will be your priorities?

MH It is easy to say Climate, Climate, Climate, but we need to make clear the part that the Green Party and engaged Leadership has to play in achieving this, but also in addressing the social justice agenda of the Green Party.

Our priorities will be first of all COP26, the lead up to it, the message we need to put across, and the ongoing work to turn the word-shop into a workshop.

That will involve our regions and local parties pushing the message as part of our electoral strategy, and we are committed to working with the regional and local parties where the campaigning and electoral work is actually done.

Beyond that we need to be engaging with communities, particularly those that are estranged from the political processes, we need to be addressing the near absence of people of colour, of working class members, of those communities most affected by poverty, of those disabled by impairment.

That has to be our electoral strategy, and we are prepared to engage on that.

TR Clearly working to save all life on earth and preserving and enhancing the natural systems that will nurture it.

How we do this will be a priority job and that starts with unifying our Party. Processes, procedures, conference, dispute resolution, discipline and communications are areas that are not providing solutions and we need to work on that.

A really important part of the job for me and one that I’d thoroughly look forward to, would be visiting and working with the regions and local parties within them. I believe that strengthening and supporting regional offices so that they can provide professional help with media, campaigning and membership would make a huge difference and ensure our Party is stronger throughout England and Wales, rather than in small pockets.

Strong regional parties would broaden our perspectives and help us fine-tune our responses to local elections and campaigns. Access for local media too will be enhanced if we can develop relationships and be relied on to respond promptly and professionally.

Conference is where the most important decisions are made, yet only a miniscule percentage of members ever attend. Strong regional parties would be part of the solution to this; we could revisit the idea of reforming conference voting and looking at regional conferences with online voting facilities and greater regional input.

The groups within our Party too are struggling to build around the issues that they want to ensure are heard. The success story is the Young Greens and we need to look at that model and why it works well at getting issues raised and policies to conference. Auto-enrolment is a key differentiator: when joining the Party, members who fulfil the criteria (young/students) automatically become members of the Young Greens, receiving a welcome email and regular updates. None of the other groups benefit from this.

When I was Chair of Green Party Women, we couldn’t even get access to a mailing list of women within the Party in order to reach out. New members fill in details about themselves that could be used to auto-enrol (with an opt-out) them into Greens of Colour, Green Party Disability Group, Green Party Women, LGBTIQA+ Greens and Green Seniors. Not only would this enrich the groups but new members would very quickly feel that they are welcome, heard and seen.

And then there are allies outside the Party both locally and nationally that we could be building relationships with, in order to tackle shared concerns for specific actions, events or goals. During the 1000 days of protest by the anti-fracking movement at Preston New Road here in Lancashire, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Reclaim the Power, the Unions, academics, celebrities, environmental and religious groups came to join residents and help get us through this gruelling but necessary action. The ability to stall progress, increase costs, impact reputation, and upset supply chains is what prevented progress on shale gas extraction long enough to cause share prices in the company operating to see its share price plummet from pounds to pennies and the earth shake enough to prove us right and bring a moratorium.

We need to keep gathering power behind our aims and along with a strong, united Party, we need to draw on the power of the Unions, environmental groups, NGOs and others to unite around what does unite us. The more we work alongside others both inside and outside of our Party, the more we are ‘being the change we wish to see.

Tina (left) campaigning against fracking with Emma Thompson (right).

Emma Thompson said: “Please read Tina’s manifesto - it explains so fully and clearly why Green politics are the only possible future and why they are central to all the system changes that we urgently need to make.  Women will be key in this movement towards a cleaner, juster planet and I am proud to support Tina who is one of the world’s greatest activists. She is not interested in power for its own sake and will serve you and the planet with stunning dedication and humility. I wish her and Martin Hemingway success as Co-Leaders of The Green Party.” 

The COP26 conference is taking place in November, in Glasgow. What are your expectations of anything significant being agreed by participant governments?

TR Absolutely no expectation at all. Too many talks, too many promises, too many treaties that amount to nothing more than a vague nod from the wealthiest countries, whilst those already experiencing the worsening impacts of climate change, and least responsible for it… are literally left out to dry, flood, endure flames, famine and flight.

There need to be penalties and polluters should pay – not with readily available money, but time-served. Agreeing the law of Ecocide would be a good start followed by a choice to act together to save all of us. Cooperation is going to have to become the way, rather than winners and losers.

The Green Party, as the only Party genuinely dedicated to the environment and life on earth, needs a powerful presence both at the talks in Glasgow and in towns and cities throughout the UK. This is a rare opportunity to truly unite not just as members but alongside Unions, environmentalists, NGOs and deeply concerned others to show we can work together to achieve a clear goal: to make COP26 face up to reality, move on from talking, include the voices of the affected and take action to stop any more tipping points becoming inevitable.

How do you think the Green party should position itself politically in the run up to the next general election?

MH We are the Party of reality. We have to address the reality of damaging climate change. We have to address the reality of environmental damage in other ways, water quality, air quality, land degradation.

We have to address the issues of inequality, and this means addressing the economic system that places emphasis on growth rather than fairness and justice.

There are issues in education, in health and social care, in community provision that have to be addressed – the Green party has to lead on this because the Conservatives do not care, and the Labour Party has given up – as Starmer says the ambition of Labour is to work more closely with business.

TR As the opposition! We are the ONLY Party that tells the truth on climate, that holds the government to account and doesn’t shy away from being honest for the sake of votes. There is no other Party like us.

I doubt any of the other Parties would have a fraction of their policies on climate if it weren’t for Caroline Lucas bringing it to parliament, our Councillors working to declare climate emergencies or our members relentlessly informing their MPs.

Other Parties pander to what will win voters, which may sound like the right thing to do, until you realise the consequences of all that they left out.

A review of the party's Instruments of Governance was called for and approved by Conference some 6 years ago. The " Holistic Review Commission" was set up in 2018 which aimed to deliver radical constitutional reforms. In your opinion, what are the reasons why after all this time and effort, it seems almost impossible for the party to adopt a new constitution?

MH I have been closely involved in the process which has been held up by the failure of those addressing the process to recognise that they had to operate within the terms set by the ballot. I have proposed various constitutional documents that would have done what the ballot said was wanted, but those involved wanted to go further than the ballot permitted.

My perception is that the process involved centralisation of power within the Party, and this process is something about which we have serious concerns.

We are a membership led party, not a leader led party, and this is important to both of us.

Conference is the Supreme Body of the party. Given that its participants are self-appointed. What constitutional changes will you propose to address the widely acknowledged democratic deficit created by this anomaly?

MH This is an issue for the Party to discuss. Only a minority of the Party are engaged with Party issues. Many see their Green Party membership as an add on to active campaigning in other areas.

We need to address the make up of the Conference audience. When we hit 20,000 members we should have moved to delegate conferences, but as membership has grown that threshold has been kicked down the road.

We have probably reached the point where that decision has to be made so that those voting at Conference represent the breadth of membership rather than those that can attend, or that can ‘pack’ conference. We will be supporting the party in moves to reform of conference, both in terms of simplifying and opening up the policy proposal process, and in the reform of participation.

Martin marching at Kirby Misperton fracking site

Identity issues, especially around gender recognition, has been hugely controversial in the party recently. What will be your approach to healing the division which has opened up in the party?

TR Not just controversial, but the cause of deeply damaging division, huge upset and anger within our membership. It’s a matter of urgency that we put a plan in place and enact it, before more harm is done to individuals and Party reputation. How can we expect people to vote us into government, if we can’t even address our own internal disputes? Why would the voters trust us?

We’ve lost valued members which is such a failure really; some because they disputed another’s views/policies and many more because they felt the Party had begun to shift the focus and priority away from the impending climate catastrophe. I think we also need to be aware that for many members – the cause of these disputes is not clear, the terminology unfamiliar and the subject matter and implications, not well known.

I recall when Sian wrote her letter referring to the problems surrounding trans and women’s rights – some members asked what problems this was even referring to. Such a tiny percentage of members are engaged with the internal politics, the making of policy, conference etc – most are out campaigning or getting involved with local environmental groups and just trusting that as The Green Party, we’re getting on with the politics of being green.

We have procedures to handle disputes and clearly these are not adequately resourced, supported or working. There is a process issue, and it’s with process and professionalism that we’ll address it. Martin’s suggestion of a ‘Members’ Assembly’ is an excellent one. We cannot stifle the discussions - they just spill out onto social media and that’s no place to solve anything so we must make space, time and support for them.

MH We will be asking GPRC under its party well-being power to constitute a members assembly. Not one that requires particular groups have representatives, but in the best tradition of such assemblies that selects participants at random from the entire membership; that checks on current views on a set of questions, that seeks expert informants from different positions on the spectrum of the debate, and concerned with different aspects of the debate, and that seeks to produce a document that agrees what that policy means in detail.

Members can choose to accept the outcome or not, but we need to find a position that the majority can be happy with, and seek to give the issue a rest.

What is your vision for Green party over the next few years?

MH We need to position the Green Party in two ways, and this has long been our difficulty.

We need to be the leading party on acting on the environmental issues that people identify as part of our ‘Unique Selling Point’. One of our problems has been getting away from this identification of the Green Party as a single issue party.

What we need to be building at the same time is our identity as the party of social justice and fairness. The Party that represents the excluded and the left behind as well as those parts of the middle class that identify with this agenda, as well as with the overarching climate concern.

TR Government. Hear me out…

The reality of climate change is finally too blatant to ignore and as the impacts grow, people are realising what the other Parties have done, and it’s going to be unforgiveable. Supporting industries that are breaking our life-support system, subsidising them with our money, inflicting the same on other countries like some sort of climate-colonialism, subjecting us and our children to a life of hardship as resources dwindle, weather becomes unpredictable and tipping points take us to a future we can’t begin to conceive; all our governments that were aware of what scientists were proving, failed to act and this is criminal.

It’s also ever-more apparent that the Greens are the only Party sounding the alarm for decades and acting in all the ways possible (under a FPTP voting system) to at least act on the impending crisis. The others are liars.

One MP, more than 400 councillors, thousands of activists and tens of thousands of members are not in this for popularity, we’re in it to face reality and reality is dawning.

Voting opens on 2 September 10am and closes 23 September 10pm.