After the General Election – What Now for the Greens?

Apart from Green co-leader Caroline Lucas doubling her majority in Brighton Pavilion, last Thursday, the general election delivered a poor result for the Green Party. The national vote halved from 2015 and in Bristol West, where we started the campaign as favourites to win the seat, the Greens finished a distant third behind Labour. I got wind of this from local activists here in London who had visited Bristol to help out. The Labour surge swept the Greens away, in Bristol and across the country, with not even a second place finish anywhere.

We can perhaps claim that our very existence pulled Labour to the left, and so played a part in Labour’s success. One of the reasons Corbyn supporters cited for electing him leader, was to get votes back from the Greens.

For sure, by pursuing a ‘progressive alliance’ which in practice meant the Greens standing down in dozens of constituencies, in favour of Labour or the Lib Dems, our vote was bound to fall. And even where we did stand, the message either got through that we didn’t think we could win, or else people just threw their support behind Labour without giving us a thought. We did invite this with our strategy.

It is likely that even if we had stood everywhere the result would have been similar, I think, although our total would have improved a little. Something happened in the election campaign, a big shift in the mood of the electorate. All the various discontents of the voters coalesced into a surge in support for Labour. I can’t ever remember a late swing to Labour in a general election campaign before, but it happened this year.

Most Greens will be pleased that the Tories lost their majority in Parliament. I for one was jumping up and down, punching the air as the exit poll was revealed on TV at 10pm on Thursday. But now the dust has settled a little, we need to think through where we go from here. Off the top of my head, there are a couple options available.

Labour pretty much lifted their environment policies from the Greens, and may well drive this further home by appealing even more to Green voters, next time. Certainly, this is one of the recommendations from Paul Mason, economic journalist and Labour member, on how Labour should proceed. It doesn’t look as though returning to our old policy of standing everywhere in Parliamentary elections will be fruitful.     

Therefore, we could continue and extend the current strategy, that is defend Brighton Pavilion and stand in less seats elsewhere, at least saving some money. It could be that a few other target seats can be identified, but logically this will involve challenging in Tory held seats, perhaps where the Lib Dems are the main challengers, but Labour nowhere. I haven’t picked through the results of Thursday’s election in any great detail, but there may be some areas where this is feasible.

This might mean that we largely give up on Parliamentary elections, and become a party that exists mainly at local and regional government level, until such a time as support is solidified enough at local level in an area, before any attempt is made to stand in Westminster elections. We can continue to press for proportional voting, but I doubt Labour or the Tories will introduce such a system for Parliament, it is in their interest to continue to back the status quo.

The only other strategy that I can think of for the Greens, is to pursue an ecosocialist approach and to outflank Labour on their left. Not full blown ecosocialism of course, that would mean tearing the down the capitalist system entirely and starting again. Much as I might like this idea, I think the public is not ready for it yet. But there is still electoral space in being radical, which in all honesty the Labour manifesto was not. It has been likened to the Social Democrat Party manifesto from 1983, which at the time was considered tame by the left.

There are obvious areas for Greens to exploit. Labour are in favour of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, which is a subject that a sizable minority of people in the UK are opposed to. Labour will not change their approach to this, whatever Corbyn’s views are. These voters will be disenfranchised if the Greens do not stand.

Labour is pretty much committed to carrying on welfare benefit cuts, with no mention in their manifesto of reversing the Tory cuts of the last seven years. Anyone with a once of compassion for their fellow citizens cannot support such cruelty. Some in Labour are toying with the idea of a Citizens Income, but it will not be in their next election manifesto.

Labour is essentially a centralising force, with big government solutions to everything and a desire for control at the centre. It is part of Labour’s tradition to be like this, and I can’t see them changing this approach. Greens can champion a real kind of localism, as opposed to the Tories bastardisation of the term, by handing back real and substantial powers to local communities. No other party offers this.

We should tax wealthy individuals and corporations more than Labour is suggesting. Their policy on raising corporation tax would leave the level still 2% lower than it was in 2010, so this is an easy hit. We should also advocate a wealth tax on the richest individuals including any property owned. 

We should end the absurd notion of a monarchy and all the hangers on who go with it. We would make the country a republic, and not before time in the twentieth first century. Labour, much as some of them might like it, will not go near this type of policy.

Although, as I say, it is probably too soon to advocate full ecosocialism, we should not shy away from pinning the blame for our environmental ills where it firmly belongs, on the capitalist system, and say that we should be transitioning ourselves away from this damaging system, in the longer term.

Perhaps the dye is now cast, and there isn’t anything much we can do to improve our electoral prospects in the short term. The political wheel will no doubt turn again at some point, but we may have a very long wait indeed. Some may consider joining Labour and trying to Green them, but I don’t think I will be one of them. But whatever we do we should aim to be part of this movement for change, however we position ourselves electorally. 

Take a look at the Sheer Breath-taking Arrogance of this Labour Blogger

I should say at the outset, that I quite like The Skwarkbox blog. It is pro-Labour Party, pro-Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and the blog has some interesting, informative and entertaining posts on it. It is one of the blogs that I find myself reading from time to time.

But, a post appeared today on The Skwarkbox entitled, ‘Greens have stepped aside in several seats. Why hand Wirral West to Tories?’ The final paragraph of the post implores readers to ‘Please share this post and let’s build a groundswell calling on the Greens to step aside…’ So here I am, sharing the post, but not in an attempt to persuade the local Greens in Wirral to stand aside, far from it. Instead, I’m taking this golden opportunity to highlight the arrogance and sense of entitlement which is sadly commonplace in the ‘people’s party.’

As the Skwarkbox headline informs us, the Green Party have stepped down from standing in ‘several’ seats, particularly where these seats are marginals, mainly in favour of the Labour Party, Ealing central and Acton, Derby North and Brighton Kemptown, amongst them. The Greens have also stood aside for the Lib Dems in seats like Richmond Park and Twickenham in south west London.

Even the Lib Dems threw the Greens a penny, by pulling out of standing against Green MP Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion. I say a penny because the Lib Dems only got 1500 votes in 2015 in this constituency and Caroline’s majority was nearly 7,000, so the Lib Dems didn’t give us much.

Labour has failed to even stand down in hopeless seats for them, in favour of the Greens (or anyone else), that would constitute a symbolic act of electoral fraternity. Take the Isle of Wight, which the Green Party is targeting in next month’s general election for example. The sitting Tory MP, Andrew Turner is standing down, after making homophobic remarks when addressing students at a college on the island.

This was the result of the 2015 general election on the Isle of Wight:

CON 40.7%

UKIP 21.2%

GRN 13.4%

LAB 12.8%

LD 7.4%

IND 4.5%

You will notice that even the combined totals of Green, Lib Dem, Labour and the independent, is less than the Tories total, and that is without the UKIP vote, most of which is likely to go to the Tories this time. In short, this looks like a very safe seat for the Tories. 

In some ways I can understand the Lib Dems standing as they were second in the 2010 general election to the Tories, but Labour has not a cat in hell’s chance of winning this seat. As I say, probably the Greens haven’t either, but what would it have cost Labour to stand down here? Nothing at all, really. But this is just what the Labour Party is like, fiercely tribal, and incredibly arrogant.

The Skwarkbox post also demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how the Green Party goes about its business. Take this example:

‘The SKWAWKBOX calls on the Green party leadership to get hold of their representatives in Wirral West. The Greens have no realistic prospect of victory…Merseyside would not forgive or forget the Greens persisting in such a short-sighted course of action.’

Note the arrogance, of course, but also this is not the Labour Party where central party diktats are handed down, like in Surrey where three Labour Party activists have been expelled from the party for supporting a National Health Action Party candidate against the Tory Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. In the Green Party, any decision to stand or not in elections, is left to local parties.

I’m an in principle supporter of a progressive alliance to kick the Tories out, but I’ve always suspected the idea wouldn’t come to much, mainly because of the Labour Party’s attitude, and you can see this amply demonstrated by The Skwarkbox post.

Why doesn’t The Skwarkbox piece recommend that local Labour offer the Greens something in the Wirral area in return for standing down, instead of attempting to bully them via social media? One word, arrogance!

Oh, and the Greens will be taking the seat of Bristol West off Labour this time, and no doubt more seats in the future. Happy electioneering comrades!  

People’s Progressive Alliance takes root in UK General Election

An in principle supporter of a progressive alliance of the leftish UK political parties, for the next general election, I have also been sceptical that it would ever happen in any meaningful way. As far back as January the Labour Party’s NEC ruled out participating in any such electoral alliance, and before this insisted on standing a candidate in the Richmond Park by-election at the end of last year. There was quite a bit of support for standing down in Richmond Park, in favour of the Lib Dems, as the Greens did, but Labour centrally threatened to impose a candidate if the local party refused to select one.

The Lib Dems, other than being pleased if Greens stood down their favour, have, centrally, refused to back the idea too. All of which made the possibility of an alliance getting off the ground, extremely unlikely, apart from a patch work of local agreements, which will not be enough to defeat the Tories.

But, maybe, just maybe this idea is getting some serious legs on it, as people on the ground are showing a willingness to cooperate to maximise the chances of beating the Tories, in more and more locations. Allied to this, is a growing movement in favour of tactical voting, to the same end, defeating Tories. People voting with their feet, as the saying goes, and ignoring central party commands to stand come what may.

First off, Ealing Greens decided to stand down in favour of Labour MP Rupa Huq, who beat the Conservatives with a majority of just 274 votes in 2015 in Ealing central and Action, in west London. Rupa Huq commented: ”I’m now the red-green candidate and I’m proud to be so.”  

This piece in The Independent also quotes Stephen Clark, the organiser of West London Compass as saying: “Discussions are taking place in a number of the other seats between the Greens and the most likely potential progressive candidate, and we’re hoping something will come from those.”

Next up was the Greens decision to not contest Brighton Kemptown constituency where Tory MP Simon Kirby won in 2015 with a majority of only 690 over Labour. In 2015 the Greens gained over 3,000 votes in the constituency.

Then the Lib Dems decided not to contest Green MP Caroline Lucas’ seat in Brighton Pavilion, where she holds nearly a 8,000 majority (over Labour), but the Lib Dems 1,500 votes or so gained last time will come in useful. Caroline Lucas said of the decision: “In Brighton something amazing is happening. People are putting aside party allegiances and working together so we have the best possible chance of delivering a fairer voting system and beating the Tories at the next election."

So, predictably it is the Labour Party who are dragging their feet on embracing this opportunity to damage the Tories chances, but even in Labour some things are stirring. In Surrey, the local Labour Party want to stand down in favour of the Lib Dems in Tory Health Minister Jeremy Hunt’s seat of South West Surrey, even though they finished above the Lib Dems in 2015. They are obviously mindful that in 2010 the Lib Dems finished a good second place to the Tories, and did cut the Tory majority to just 861 in 2001.

Labour high command has threatened to impose a candidate, but if the local activists don’t support the campaign, it is likely an informal alliance will be created here, whatever the Labour Party leadership say or do.

In the Bristol West constituency, where the Greens are favourite to win the seat from Labour, the Women’s Equality Party have decided not to stand, and to support the Green Party candidate Molly Scott Cato. Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader commented:

“I’m delighted to welcome the WEP’s support for Molly in Bristol West. It is a clear and important recognition that Molly is someone who will bring people together and stand up for everyone with a bold vision to give Bristol the kind of future it both needs and deserves."

It does appear as though what we might call the People’s Progressive Alliance, is becoming a reality, despite what the Labour and Lib Dem leaders are saying. Whether it will be enough to kick the Tories out is debatable, but it does look as though it is the best shot we have got. The people can make this happen.  

Green Party General Election Strategy – A Suggested New Plan

Now that Labour has officially refused to enter into a progressive alliance, it leaves a black hole in the Green Party’s general election strategy. The current Green co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, won the leadership of the party advocating a progressive alliance, and this has been assumed to be the approach that would be adopted for the next general election. The objective of the alliance would have been to remove the Tory government and to introduce proportional voting for Parliamentary elections.

So what now for the Greens? The Greens could try to form an anti-Tory alliance with the other parties of the vague left, but this is highly unlikely to achieve either of the stated objectives, and the Lib Dems show little enthusiasm for the idea anyway, other than asking the Greens to stand aside pretty much everywhere.

In the past, the Greens general election strategy has been to stand in as many constituencies as possible, but to select a handful of target seats, where the party’s prospects of winning seats is most likely. We can return to this type of approach for the next general election, but I would suggest we need to add a further ingredient into the calculus of which seats to target with more resources this time. We should also make the most of our distinctive policies, on nuclear power and weapons, environmental protection, anti-fracking green new deal, real localisation and more.

Clearly, we will want to defend Caroline Lucas’ seat in Brighton Pavilion, but we could do with targeting perhaps another 3 or 4 seats, which should also look for some regional spread, so that members don’t have too far to travel to help out in these constituencies. I think at least one of the new target seats should be in London, and I’m going to suggest the new criteria be used for assessing target seats in a London example. But the same rationale should be used for deciding on all new target seats.

The new element I will throw into the pot, is likely to be one of, if not the most important issue at the next the general election, Brexit.

We should target constituencies where the Remain vote was strongest at the EU Referendum last year, and ideally have sitting MPs who voted to trigger Article 50, prematurely, in the Parliamentary vote.

A letter from a Labour voter in the Guardian today, writing about Labour's Brexit stance, concludes by saying:

'Do such people as myself stay with the party hoping that it reforms itself and regains its former political vigour; or do I switch to the Greens who share my political principles?'

Two constituencies in London spring immediately to mind, Holborn and St Pancras and Vauxhall. Boundary changes will probably happen before the election, but just for the sake of argument, let us look at these two.

In Holborn and St Pancras, the former leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, stood last time and got a respectable vote, and the seat is currently held by Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer, the party's shadow for exiting the EU. He has said, at length, that he will vote to trigger Article 50 at the third reading of the Bill next week, and the local authority that covers the area, Camden, voted 75%-25% to Remain.

Here is the 2015 result:

Labour                29,062 - 52.9%

Conservative     12,014 - 21.9%

Green Party        7,013 - 12.8%

Liberal Democrat 3,555 - 6.5%

UKIP                        2,740 - 5.0%

Vauxhall has a sitting Labour MP too, Kate Hoey, who was one of the leaders of the Labour Leave campaign during the referendum, so she is sure to vote to trigger Article 50, and again the local authority area Lambeth, voted 75%-25% to Remain.

Here is the 2015 result:

 

Labour                 25,778 - 53.8%

Conservative      13,070 - 27.3%

Green Party          3,658 - 7.6%

Liberal Democrat 3,312 - 6.9%

UKIP                        1,385 - 2.9%

Big majorities for Labour in these seats but there is a new mood about after the Brexit vote, and neither of these constituencies is likely to elect a Tory or UKIPer, even if the left vote gets split.

We would effectively be targeting the 16 million (those in the target seats) who voted to Remain in the EU whilst pointing out the Lib Dems austerity role in five years of coalition government with the Tories. It will make for a unique offer.

Apparently, 7,000 members of the Labour Party have quit in the last week over the party supporting triggering Article 50, according to the New Statesman.

This is just a suggestion. I welcome a debate on how we move forward with a new vote winning strategy from others, but if we don't adopt something like this, we will leave many of the Remain voters to the Lib Dems.

We should claim them.

Labour Finally Kills the Progressive Alliance - Official

Well, my scepticism about a progressive alliance ever coming into being, has finally been confirmed. In many ways it is a shame, as I broadly supported the idea, but I just could not see Labour in particular, but the Lib Dems too, who have shown very little interest in taking the idea forward, other than suggesting that the Greens should stand down everywhere, agreeing to it.

Labour MPs like Clive Lewis and Lisa Nandy have spoken in support of a progressive alliance, but this has largely been the exception within Labour. But it appears now as though Labour is officially against the idea.

Writing on the website Labour List, Alice Perry, a member of the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) representing local government, reports from last Tuesday's meeting. The progressive alliance was one of the items discussed at the meeting, and she writes:

"Jeremy Corbyn and the NEC confirmed opposition to so-called “progressive alliances”, with Jeremy and others agreeing that parties like the SNP and the Lib Dems are not progressive. Labour will stand candidates in and contest all relevant elections."

So there you have it, probably the clearest statement about anything to come out of the Labour Party this week. The progressive alliance will not include the Labour Party, which to all intents and purposes means the idea is dead. Without Labour, it is pretty much pointless, if the plan is to kick the Tories out of office, which is what it has always billed as.

I suppose it is still possible I guess, that there will be a few local agreements here and there, but that will be the extent of it. Without being an expert on Labour's rules, it is probably possible that a conference motion could reverse this decision, but that looks highly unlikely to me.

The contradictions inherent in the policies and outlook of the different parties that may have formed a progressive alliance, has made it impossible in practice.

It is probably for the best all round that Labour has made its opposition clear now, so that the other possible members of the alliance can all get on with planning their own election strategies. There is no distraction now for the Green Party in developing a strategy for trying to win a handful of Parliamentary seats at the next general election, probably in 2020, and for making some gains in local government representation over the next few years.

We have distinctive policies, let us go out and convince the people to vote for them.

Labour’s New Immigration Stance Sounds the Death Knell for a Progressive Alliance

Having been an ‘in principle’ supporter of an anti-Tory electoral pact at the next general election, I have also always been sceptical that it will ever transpire, in any meaningful way. There was a sort of pact between the Greens and the Lib Dems in the recent Richmond Park by-election, but Labour stood and has shown no real appetite for the concept.

With the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, effectively re-launching his leadership in a speech and a tour of the media studios on Tuesday, I think he buried any faint possibility of a progressive alliance coming into being.

I say that, even though Corbyn’s position appeared to shift almost by the hour on Tuesday, in what we might charitably call a nuancing of his position, on fat cat pay, but more especially on the free movement of people within the (and between the UK and) European Union (EU).

By the end of the day Corbyn, although it wasn’t what the pre-speech press releases had said, was saying that:

"Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle, but I don't want that to be misinterpreted, nor do we rule it out."

Clear as mud, then. But the whole exercise had come on the back of the weekend comments from right wing Labour MPs, like Stephen Kinnock, that free movement of people would have to be curtailed as part of the Brexit negotiations. It could be Corbyn was trying please everyone in his party by being so vague by the end of the day, but it seemed to me that this was a shift towards ‘managed’ immigration from the EU, since staying in the EU single market almost certainly means accepting free movement. Reform of this it seems, is not an option.

Corbyn is of course mindful of the electoral threat to Labour from UKIP (and the Tories), in the north of England particularly, whilst trying to keep the 70% of Labour voters who voted to remain in the EU behind Labour. He can’t have it both ways though, we are either in the EU single market with free movement, or we are not, and Corbyn seems to be signalling, rather like the Prime Minister, Theresa May, that immigration trumps trade in any final Brexit deal.

Not only does this risk alienating a majority of Labour voters, but it really ends the prospect of electoral cooperation with the other likely participants of a progressive alliance, who all want to retain EU single market access and free movement, and even remain fully inside the EU.

The Lib Dems have of course made a second referendum on EU membership their flag ship policy, and they will be pleased if Labour leaves this ground free for them to exploit. Their leader, Tim Farron said: "This confirms what we all suspected, that Jeremy Corbyn never had his heart in fighting to protect Britain’s place in Europe.” 

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader said: “Underlying signals are pointing towards the UK leaving the EU Single Market - the world’s biggest free trade area. Scotland did not vote to leave the EU and this year the Scottish Government will continue to do all we can to protect Scotland's vital interests.”

Plaid Cymru's leader, Leanne Wood, who said she favoured staying in the single market, was asked if the UK should stay in the single market and keep freedom of movement, replied: "Well I think we'd have to. I've been to Brussels and spoke to officials there and they are very clear about the freedom of movement of goods, trade and people all coming as a package."  

The Green Party co-leader, Caroline Lucas, a very vocal backer of a progressive alliance called it a ‘capitulation to the Tories’ and she added:

"The Labour Party is handing the post-referendum process to the Conservatives on a plate. First they risk throwing Britain off the Brexit cliff edge by voting with them to trigger Article 50 prematurely and now they seem set to sacrifice our access to the single market by joining the Tory blame game on free movement. At a time when we need a real opposition more than ever we're seeing Labour dancing to the Tories' Brexit tune.”

Increasingly, it looks as though on the central political issue of the time in the UK, Labour is taking a position where an alliance with the other anti-Tory parties, is all but impossible. Without Labour (and the Lib Dems), there is zero chance of a progressive alliance winning a general election, which makes it is all rather pointless really.

Progressive alliance – RIP?

Richmond Park Donation Scandal Rocks the Green Party

An internal party report written by the Chair and two other senior members of Kingston Green Party, reveals that pressure was put on the two local parties which cover the Richmond Park constituency, not to stand a candidate in the recent by-election. The other local party involved is Richmond and Twickenham Green Party.

I first came across this report when a link was posted to it on the Green Left FaceBook page last Saturday, it was posted elsewhere on Facebook too. Green Left rejected the post once admins noticed the confidential nature of the report, but it remained on another Facebook page for several hours until it was removed. The poster of the link called themselves Sara Leeks, and had only just joined the Green Left page before posting the link to the report.

I read the report, which to be honest didn’t tell me an awful lot that I didn’t know already from what has been in the public domain, and postings to an internal Green Left email list. But there was one detail of how pressure was applied to Kingston Green Party to not stand a candidate, by the leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, which was the part played by a £250,000 donation to the party, conditional on the Greens not putting a candidate up at the recent by-election in Richmond Park. It was said that if the Greens agreed to withdraw in favour of the Lib Dem candidate, this would prove the party’s seriousness about forming a ‘progressive alliance.’

Given the confidential nature of the report, which was sent to the Green Party Executive Committee and the Green Party Regional Committee, I decided not to comment publicly on the matter, and await the findings of the internal review. It was also obvious that this report was potentially very damaging to the Green Party. However, I thought the report would re-surface again somewhere on the internet, and sure enough today it did.

The report has been re-published in full via the Guido Fawkes right wing political website, with a follow up story to get full value out of the revelations. The report claims that pressure was brought to bear on the local parties, by the Green Party leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley and other senior figures in the party, and the donation offer played a part in adding to this pressure.

The Green Party did not accept the donation in the end, because it either was against the party’s ethical code for donations or it was dodgy in some other way, possibly it was judged to be illegal under Electoral Commission rules for party donations. But before that decision was made, the report claims that Green Party staff made it known that their jobs were at risk if the donation was not accepted and the Green Party did not withdraw their candidate from the by-election.

Green Left has now drafted a statement on the affair to the Green Left committee:

Green Left  welcomes the GPRC’s decision to consider the serious  issues raised in the so-called ‘Richmond Report’. Transparency and accountability are essential in this process.  We look forward to the Green Party 2017 Conference democratically arriving at a clear policy on the ‘Progressive Alliance’.    

I would add to this that the Regional Committee should review this report as a matter extreme urgency, given that I think the plan is to do this in mid-January next year. We can’t wait that long for an official response, because the cat is now out of bag, and whilst the world ponders on the allegations, a delay in a full official open response, is now heaping even more damage onto the party than is necessary. A bad situation made worse, if you like. But this is my opinion only at this stage.

The Green Party also needs to stop any further collusion with other political parties, or ‘progressive alliances’ until the party has come to a proper democratic decision via the party’s processes, which in practice means at Spring conference next year.

I worry very much for the immediate future of the Green Party, with it rumoured that over a thousand members have already resigned from the party since the decision was taken to stand down in favour of the Lib Dems in Richmond Park. Let us get all of this out into the open and an agreement or not reached, before any more pressure is applied to local parties over the mooted, and that is all it is at the moment, participation in any electoral pacts, and with whom.

Is the Green Party Pro-EU First, Environment Second These Days?

The decision, taken locally but heavily influenced by the Green Party leadership, of the party not standing a candidate in this Thursday’s Richmond Park by-election, appears to signal a change in the political priorities for the English Greens.

To recap, the by-election has been called because the sitting Tory MP, Zac Goldsmith, resigned from his party and is standing as an independent, anti-Heathrow Airport expansion candidate. Goldsmith, although having something of an ecological viewpoint, is not necessarily against airport expansion in general, but he is against it in his own back yard.

The Lib Dem candidate Sarah Olney, also backs airport expansion, but not at Heathrow, whilst the Labour candidate, Christian Wolmar takes the same position, preferring Gatwick Airport for an extra runway.

One might have thought that the Greens would seize on this opportunity to differentiate themselves from the other parties and use the by-election to publicise the urgency of action on climate change, and the part that air travel plays in exacerbating the problem.

The first indications were that this was indeed going to be the case, with a candidate selected to stand, but a change of heart by that candidate, and some other activists locally, saw the decision reversed. This was after representations were made by the Green Party co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley.

There has been more emphasis in recent years on the Green Party’s social as well as environmental policies, but I can’t ever remember environmental policy, and in particular those policies around climate change, being relegated to a subordinate status like has happened with this by-election.

The Lib Dems, hardly surprisingly given their modus operandi, are using the Heathrow expansion issue in the classic nimbyist way, but they have also tried desperately to make the by-election about a completely different subject. Brexit.

I suppose this should come as no great surprise to seasoned Lib Dem watchers, as trying to thwart the Brexit process is now their flag-ship policy, as they try to recover from their near wipe out at last year’s general election. They see an opportunity to tempt some of the 16 million Remain voters into supporting the Lib Dems, particularly as the Tories (and probably Labour too, although it is not clear yet), do not want to re-run the referendum on our membership of the EU.  

Green Party members and voters were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU, as I was, but there was a minority who wanted to leave. Green Left comrade, Larry O’Hara made the case for Greens to vote to leave the EU eloquently on this blog prior to the referendum. Larry makes a strong case for Greens to abide by their principles and take the opportunity to bring democratic decision making to its lowest, local level. But as I say, most Greens, in some cases reluctantly, voted to stay. 

This was pretty much my view, seeing staying as the lesser of evils, rather than let the Tories dismantle environmental and employment protection policies.

I wonder how many Green remainers though, put EU membership or some kind of associate membership above the issue of airport expansion and climate change? I dare say that some Greens will say that staying in the EU will better enable us to deal with climate issues, but that is a matter of opinion.

Of course the decision not to stand in Richmond Park is all bound up with the idea, promoted by the Green Party’s new co-leaders, to make a start on the formation of a progressive alliance, of political parties vaguely to the left of the Tories. Labour are standing though in Richmond Park, and a progressive alliance does not yet exist in any real way.

I am broadly in favour of an anti-Tory alliance for the next general election, but I do think that we Greens have missed an opportunity to trumpet our distinctive position on airport expansion and the issues surrounding it, in this by-election.

Not all Green Party members are happy about the position we have taken in Richmond Park, and I must admit that I am uneasy about using this by-election as a referendum on Brexit, or the terms of it. I also have the feeling that we may be being used as the Lib Dem's useful idiots.   

  

Richmond Park Byelection - Green's Decison not to Stand Provokes Fury amongst Membership

The decision by the local Green Party in Richmond and Kingston (in south west London), not to stand a candidate in the forthcoming byelection in the constituency, has been met with a wave of opposition from party members. If you are able to look at Green Party member's forums, Facebook groups and email lists, you will see the majority opinion of the contributors is against the non-standing decision taken locally.

The byelection was caused by the sitting Tory MP, Zac Goldsmith, resigning and standing as an independent, over the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Green Party rules and indeed principles are to leave decisions on standing and candidate selection to local parties, which I think is right, but I'm not too clear about the extent of consultation with members that has taken place. This is complicated by there being two separate local parties covering the Parliamentary constituency, (Richmond and Kingston) but it looks as though the decision was taken by a small group of activists. I may be wrong, but that is my impression.

Further to this, it also looks like pressure was applied to the local party by the Green Party co-leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, who stood on a 'progressive alliance' ticket to win this year's party leadership contest. The leadership putting pressure on local parties not to stand is not a new thing. I remember the local party being discouraged to stand when Tory MP David Davis resigned his seat as a protest against government policy. Labour and Lib Dems did not stand, but the Greens in the end did, and finished second.

Judging by the forums mentioned above, I'm not the only Green Party member who thinks the decision not to stand in Richmond Park is a bad one. I think it is wrong on many levels, and I'm broadly in favour of a 'progressive alliance' (anti-Tory is probably a better description), at the next general election, with a commitment to proportional voting for future elections.

But this is not a general election, nor is there any agreement on an alliance, and in this byelection the Labour Party look set to stand a candidate. A broadly left alliance is just not credible if the Labour Party doesn't take part in it, which looks to be situation we will have in Richmond Park. I hear they have selected Christian Wolmar as their candidate.

This byelection is also probably a unique opportunity for the Green Party to get heard, because the effective cause of it is a very green issue, airport expansion. The Lib Dems and probably Labour (as well as Zac Goldsmith, now Independent) are not against airport expansion per se, just at Heathrow Airport. They are quite happy for an expansion at Gatwick Airport, where less fuss has been caused by local residents, and it now looks as though the Green Party is in agreement with this line of policy, by the very inaction of not standing.

We could well have got a lot of media attention to put an alternative argument, which is our policy after all, and may have got a reasonable result. In this constituency we got 6% in last year's general election, and although politics has changed, with the airport issue, we could probably do better than that.

The other thing that jars here, is the Greens endorsing the Lib Dems, who are responsible for all of the austerity misery we have been put through for 5 of the last 6 years, and Green Party members know from experience how unprincipled Lib Dems can be. Say anything, if you think people will like to hear it, kind of thing party. They thrive on nimbyism, but now we will be tarred with the same brush.

The way all of this seems to have been handled, is causing a lot of disquiet in the Green Party, and is definitely not a template for a 'progressive alliance' in the future, in my opinion.

If this type of thing carries on, I fear the Greens will lose a lot of members. If we can reach a one off agreement for the general election, with a commitment to future proportional voting, then OK, I can go along with it. But we first need to get this agreement, and byelections anyway are not part of the bargain, and should be approached dependent on the local and national circumstances at the time.

Anything else, I think, will destroy the Green Party, just when we were getting a toe hold in the political system. I hope sense prevails in the end.
     

Rojava: the real alternative. Review of “The Alternative Towards a New Progressive Politics” and “Revolution in Rojava”

This Guest Blog is reposted with the permission of the author. First published by Lipstick Socialist HERE

In 1925 the Manchester Irish trade unionist Mary Quaile led a TUC delegation to the new Soviet Union. Mary had spent her life working at a grassroots level with women workers; advocating for women’s involvement in trade unions so that they could get equal pay and decent working conditions.  In the Soviet Union she saw a different society that had at its core a worker based politics with  factory committees that existed to promote wage equality, and state policies that had as much to say about the private lives of workers as about the economy. After the 1917 revolution in Russia many activists in this country saw its society as a positive example of how life could be transformed, both personally and politically for women, men and children.

But In 2016 we are all fed up with our stagnant political system, and our politicians who inspire hatred rather than hope. Brexit was just one example of people hitting back at the political elite that run this country and who refuse to either take notice of or include within the political discourse the rest of us.

In a new book edited by Lucas, Nandy and Bowers, The Alternative Towards a New Progressive Politics, they  cites as a major problem the unfair electoral system and suggest that “progressives”       (not quite  sure who they are) should work together to oppose the Conservative government and its policies. Unfortunately “progressives” are few and far between amongst the political classes, and it’s  hard to see how the ordinary person on the street can really believe this message. Politicians in this country and the political elite that surround them, with a few exceptions including Caroline Lucas and Mhari Black, are now so despised by the public it is highly unlikely they would buy the message from this book. Indeed would they even bother reading it? Who are books like this written for? Is it just written for the same Guardian readership? What about the rest of us?

People are looking for hope and look to other societies that may  give a real alternative to the stagnancy of western politics and politicians. In a new book, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women’s Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, we can see how people in a war zone, and surrounded by enemies, have created a community-based democracy, putting at its heart the equality of women. What makes this book relevant is that the writers are not just observers of Rojava, but have fought to defend this communally organised democracy. Both Anja Flach and Ercan Ayboga have taken part in the revolution, while Michael Knaff is an activist with the Berlin Kurdistan Solidarity Committe.

So where is and what is Rojava? It is part of northern Syria, and includes three cantons of Cizire, Kobani and Afrin. It is a war zone, surrounded by ISIS and Turkish forces which  are hostile to the Kurdish people. In January 2014 these three cantons issued a declaration of Democratic Autonomy creating a “democratic-autonomous administrations,” which  would be inclusive and pluralistic: a “third way” rejecting the Ba’athism dictatorship of Assad and the chauvinist Islamist opposition.

Central to this new society is the Kurdish freedom movement and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK),  a Marxist-Leninist party (including Turkish and Kurdish revolutionaries) that after the fall of the SU in 1991 adopted a  new vision of politics and society in the Middle East.

The Kurdish people are one of the most repressed in the world and although, and particularly in this country, there is a vibrant campaign to support the Palestinian people, there is little information or news about their struggle. Kurds are a displaced people, hated by the Turkish governments who have over the years persecuted them, and after the military coup in 1980 allowed the PKK to settle in Syria. The aim of the PKK was to establish a homeland in Northern Kurdistan.

The guerrilla war that ensued led to many young women and men becoming involved,  with women participating equally even as frontline soldiers.  The women had their own army known as YAJK (the Union of Free Women of Kurdistan) with its own headquarters. Women were now free to develop principles of autonomous women’s organising, dual leadership and the minimum of 40% participation of women in all areas. It was these principles that have been carried forward in all four parts of Kurdistan and are central to the new society they have created in Rojava. An activist on the Women’s Council in Cologne commented;”For thirty years I have been in the PKK movement..Only with the Rojava revolution, with the women’s communes with Arabs and Syriacs, have I really understood what it means to create a women-centred society within the state.”

This is a fascinating, if complex book. In the West we are starved of information about what is really happening in areas such as northern Syria. Our views of Middle Eastern women are often dominated by  stereotypes of them as passive victims,  not of women taking up arms to defend their country. It’s not just that people in Rojava are trying to create a radically reordered society;  they are doing it whilst besieged by the Islamists and the Turkish government who are determined to crush this  revolution. For the people in Rojava there is no alternative; “What spurs them on is the knowledge that there is no objective alternative for the Middle East, a profoundly heterogenous region. Or put another way; communalism or barbarism.”

Buy it here

Watch a film about women in Rojava:

Read Mary’s report “Soviet Russia, An Investigation by British Women Trade Unionists April to July 1925” at the WCML

Lib Dems Rising? A Successful Progressive Alliance Needs It

I know, I know. Writing those words amounts to the most difficult, even gut wrenching, post I have ever written. Unfortunately, there is a truth in those words though.

However unpalatable it may be, and it certainly is for me, the nature of British politics and our extremely undemocratic electoral system for Parliamentary elections, means that if the Tories are to be thrown out of government next time around, the Lib Dems will need to prosper.

It hardly needs to be mentioned that this is a party, so opportunist that they were prepared to prop up the most right wing Tory government I can remember (I can remember Thatcher’s Tory government, too), despite posing as a left of centre party before the 2010 general election. Student fees to be abolished, err well, no we will actually increase them, to name but one example of their treachery. All done in the name of ‘financial stability,’ apparently. Getting into power, is much more likely to have been the truth.

Under the leadership of the late Charlie Kennedy, who came into the party via the Social Democratic Party (SDP) which went under in the late 1980’s, and merged with the Liberal Party as it was, to form the Lib Dems, it was centre left politically. The social liberals were in the ascendancy at the time, but under Nick Clegg’s leadership, the economic liberals (free trade etc) took control of the party, and moved it onto similar ground as the left of the Tory Party.

The new Lib Dems were thrashed in last year’s general election, losing nearly fifty seats in Parliament, and retaining a meagre eight. They now need to re-brand themselves under new leader Tim (who?) Farron, and he is probably onto something with his call for a flag ship policy of remaining in the European Union (EU). Over 16 million people voted to remain in the EU, so it could well be fertile ground for the Lib Dems.

It often goes unmentioned by acolytes of Tony Blair, when they eulogise his election winning credentials, winning three general elections in a row, the first and only time Labour has done this, but the electoral situation at the time was very favourable. Not so much pro-Labour, as anti-Tory after their 18 year stint in power, the scandal, corruption and incompetence having caught up with them.

From the time (1992) of Britain’s humiliating exit from the European Monetary System, which attempted to tie the value of sterling broadly with the German Deutschmark, and the billions of pounds lost by the Treasury in a vain attempt to remain in the EMS, the Tories were finished. They bumped along around 31% in the polls and in actual elections.

But although Blair would have won anyway in 1997, the size of Labour’s win was magnified by the Lib Dems doing well also. They won a lot of seats from the Tories, which were beyond Labour, and the idea of ‘tactical voting’ took hold. Basically, this amounted to leftish voters voting for whoever was best placed to beat the Tory in your constituency, often the Lib Dems.

With the reduction of Parliamentary constituencies from 650 to 600 likely to happen before the next general election, which will advantage the Tories, some form of tactical anti-Tory voting will be even more necessary than it was before, if the Tories are to be beaten. Incidentally, the Lib Dems stopped boundary changes in the last Parliament, as retaliation for Tory MPs blocking the reform of the House of Lords. This was probably the best thing the Lib Dems did in government, which speaks volumes about their ‘achievements.’

If the Tories are to be vanquished at the next election, with or without a progressive alliance, which I am broadly in favour of, then I’m afraid the Lib Dems will need to do well. Sometimes, your enemy’s enemy, needs to be embraced. The next general election will be a case in point.  

After Corbyn’s Re-election as Labour Leader – Where now for the Green Party?

Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn for his overwhelming victory in the Labour Party leadership election, for the second time in a year. Corbyn won convincingly, in all sections of the party, members, supporters and affiliates (mainly union members). You can see the scale of his success at The Swawkbox here.

You will notice that according The Swawkbox piece, more than 300,000 members and supporters were banned from voting in the contest, for one reason or another, so this result is truly staggering. If all members and supporters had been allowed to vote, rather 62% of the vote, Corbyn would have probably have won 80% to 90% of the vote.

But where does this all leave the Green Party? In recent years, the party membership and votes rose steadily, then quickly with the surge just before the general election last year. This progress was built on breaking out of our ecological niche, and pushing our left social policies to the forefront. It has to be said, that since Corbyn became Labour leader, membership of the Green Party has fallen back, with many ex Greens joining Labour.

Labour has even started to poach Green Policies, on fracking, rail nationalisation, environment to some extent, and are even considering the Citizen’s Income policy. Whilst this is good from the point of view of possibly getting these policies introduced, it also leaves the Greens out on a limb in terms of holding an exclusive constituency. Maybe this doesn’t matter, as long the policies survive, but they may get watered down, to encourage ‘unity’ in the Labour Party.

So, what are the options for the Greens? We could fall back on the old ecological style, and forget about the social policies? Climate change is not going away anytime soon, so there is an argument to be made here. Labour’s environmental policies are better than they were, but still unambitious and not really enough to address the issue. The likely problem with this move is it would be too narrow, and if people can get half way there policies from Labour, and more chance of them being implemented, they may well take this option. I think the social agenda must stay.

A second option would be to move to the political right, although this is a pretty crowded area already, with the Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems all covering to some degree this terrain. Most Greens are of the political left, although not all, so I can’t see this being popular with most members. There are ‘lifestyle greens’ but this is a fairly small demographic, so has limited support amongst the general public. You wouldn’t expect me, writing on a Green Left blog to advocate this anyway.

Whilst, I might find it appealing for the Greens to move further to the left, further than Labour, I expect this would not be particularly successful electorally, and would probably cause discontent within the party, which is eco-social democratic in the main.

We could remain largely on the same territory that we have been on in recent years, as I don’t think the civil war in the Labour Party is over, and the Greens are at least united on policy issues by and large, and divided parties never win elections, and Labour is divided.

There are policy differences too, Jonathan Bartley, newly elected co-leader of the Green Party, sets out some of the main ones writing at Left Foot Forward: nuclear weapons, nuclear power, airport expansion and a fair voting system. Bartley also touches on the fundamental difference between Greens and Labour - economic growth and the centralisation of power. These are clear differences, and the Greens have better policies in all these areas. Bartley also calls for a progressive alliance between the Greens, Labour, Lib Dems and nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales. It doesn’t look like Labour is interested in this though in general, although some members are open to the idea.

One such Labour member is Jon Lansman, a leading figure in the Momentum group in the Labour Party. He is quoted from a fringe meeting at Labour conference at politics.co.uk as saying:

That Green party candidates should be allowed to be stand on a joint ticket with Labour, in the same way that some Labour MPs are also part of the Co-operative party. "Why shouldn't the Green party have the same relationship with the Labour Party that the Co-op party has with the Labour Party?"

This is a new idea, and is worthy of further consideration. The policy differences mentioned above though do make this unlikely, although not impossible. There will be resistance in Labour’s ranks, I think, and possibly the Green Party as well. If Labour became serious about this proposal, then we will need to look seriously at it.

It would be better though, I think, if Labour committed to a fair, proportional voting system, then we can have our differences, but work together, maybe in coalition, and this has the added advantage of locking the Tories out power for good on their own.

Let the dialogue begin between Labour and Greens, and we will see where we get.   

Parliamentary Boundary Changes could lead to a Permanent Tory Government in the UK

The Boundary Commission (for England) published today their initial proposals for reducing the number of constituencies, and therefore MPs, from 650 to 600, after government instructions to equalise the size of constituencies to within 5% of 74,769 registered electors per constituency. People can contribute views on the consultation on the Boundary Commission website (for England. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish voters have their own Boundary Commissions).

Sam Hartley, Secretary to the Commission, said:

‘Today’s proposals mark the first time people get to see what the new map of Parliamentary constituencies might look like. But they are just the Commission’s initial thoughts – during the next 12 weeks we want people to take a look and tell us what they like and don’t like about our proposals. Parliament has set us tight rules about reducing the number of constituencies, and making them of more equal size, and we now need the views of people around the country to help us shape constituencies that best reflect local areas. Use our website to tell us what you think, or come along to one of our public events to give us your views in person.’

There will be further public consultations in 2017 and 2018, with the final proposals due to be implemented in 2018, in time for general election of 2020.

Labour stands to be the biggest losers in this exercise, as their mainly urban constituencies tend to have less registered voters than suburban and more rural areas. The proposals also ignore local geographical boundary factors like particular local authority areas and individual towns or counties, in favour of purely numerical sections of voters.

However, these initial proposals could well change, as similar proposals in the last Parliament were subsequently altered, before being abandoned because Labour and the Lib Dems threatened to defeat them in Parliament, for which they had the numbers at the time.

Under these proposals, the Green Party could stand to lose its one Parliamentary seat, that of Caroline Lucas, as this seat, Brighton Pavilion, will become Brighton North, which will be a three way marginal, with the Tories just ahead of Labour, based on the results of the last general election.

All of which makes the idea of a ‘progressive alliance’ more attractive, if the Tories are to be kicked out of government in 2020. It is hard to see, at this stage, the Tories not winning in 2020, unless the opposing parties can somehow pool their resources and voters.

The changes look to be an exercise in gerrymandering to favour the Tories, at the expense of all the opposition parties, despite the government’s spin about fairness. If they were really interested in fairness, the government would take this opportunity to change the electoral system, to a more proportional one, but this would make it nearly impossible for the Tories to win an outright majority ever again (and Labour too).

Labour is the key here to getting a fair electoral system. When Labour was elected to government in 1997, their manifesto contained a commitment to a proportional voting system, and ex Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, compiled a report recommending the adoption of a Single Transferable Vote Plus, system. But with Labour winning much bigger than expected, the impetus for change dwindled, and the idea was shelved, never to see the light of day again.

It now looks like Labour, or a radical Labour anyway, will be unable win power on its own. So ultimately, the boundary changes might have a positive effect on our politics, or else, we will live in a one party state, with a permanent Tory government. That should concentrate minds in the Labour Party, but we will see. 

Green Party Activists Voice Doubts about an Electoral Progressive Alliance

As counting begins in the Green Party leader and deputy leader elections, Caroline Lucas, one of the (joint) candidates for leader, has renewed her call for a progressive alliance of parties of the broad left at the next general election.

But not all activists within the Green Party agree with Lucas, and there is at the very least a degree of scepticism in the party about the viability of such an alliance.

The BBC piece quotes some of them:

David Williams, another leadership contender, said that while he supported of the idea of talking to other parties he believed Labour would not co-operate. He told the BBC: ‘We can make agreements I think with the Liberal Democrats, with Plaid Cymru, with the SNP but the advantages in terms of ousting the Tories as a result of that are quite marginal. They could be quite substantial if Labour would come along and join the alliance but I don't think they will.’

An Oxfordshire Green Party activist Hazel Dawe said a "progressive" alliance would be "a wonderful thing" but believed it was unachievable. She said: ‘I think there are a lot of obstacles to achieving it, not the least of which is that the Labour party is not committed to proportional representation.’

Clive Lord, veteran of the party and a candidate for the Green Party leadership this year writes on his blog:

‘I start from a sceptical position. Labour have understandably done their damnedest to destroy the Green Party wherever we show most signs of a breakthrough – Brighton, Norwich, Bristol, Oxford.’

Andrew Cooper, from Kirkless Green Party and one of the deputy leadership candidates writing on The Norwich Radical says:

‘Labour needs to have a Progressive Alliance with itself before it can really contemplate having one with anyone else. Until Labour hopefully ‘settles down’ into some degree of stability we can’t progress matters with them.’

‘The other issue with Labour is that currently I am not convinced they have that much enthusiasm for Electoral Reform which is the principal rationale for the proposal. Too many Labour MPs and activists seem to be of the ‘one last heave’ brigade, that believe that if the undemocratic First Past the Post system works for them, then somehow that makes it legitimate. Electoral realities may make Labour wake up more quickly with a Party that is now decimated in Scotland and divided across the country. Another worrying sign was when Caroline Lucas’s 10 minute rule bill tabled last week on Electoral Reform was subject to a Labour Whip asking Labour MPs to abstain.’

Another Deputy Leadership candidate Alan Borgars writing on his blog states: ‘It would also deprive so many voters of the chance to vote for a forward-thinking alternative with new ideas and a genuine willingness to change our broken political and socio-economic systems in the UK…The Green Party can win elections without help, and indeed has had to. In fact, it was Labour we won Brighton Pavilion from in the first place back in 2010.’ Alan is a Green Left supporter.

Meanwhile, Ashford Green Party in Kent, passed motions sceptical about the Green Party joining a progressive alliance, and calling for the decision to made by members, not leadership figures in the party. One of the motions contains this paragraph:

‘Ashford Green Party is calling on the leadership and all other members of the party to immediately cease from claiming that the GPEW supports a progressive alliance until a policy is passed by conference or an internal referendum which gives all members a voice on the matter.’

Yet another Deputy leadership candidate Shahrar Ali has called for full internal party consultation on the issue.

Green Party member Charles Gate from Yorkshire, another supporter of Green Left comments on a post on the Bright Green blog on the issue:

‘First let me rename the ‘progressive alliance’ the ‘Evil Dead Alliance’ – EVIL for the lib dems (for those of you with short memories) who supported the Tories (The Evil Dead Alliance is aimed at Tories remember) for 5 long years of austerity – DEAD for the Labour Party who are not interested in anything but their own internal fighting and who ever wins the leadership that will just lead to continued in-fighting. The Labour party are probably lost for a generation as a meaningful force in politics, they may even be destroyed entirely – ALLIANCE, oh! that will be us the GP and Plaid Cymru...The Green Party leadership need to come up with something better – why not try, we are the Green Party, this is what we stand for?’

And finally a Green Party activist quoted on Left Foot Forward wrote:

‘Every time I hear ‘progressive alliance’ I hear the death knell of radical politics in the party. I hope I’m wrong.’

Personally, I’ve stated on this blog in the past that I would broadly agree to the progressive alliance idea, but I must admit, I’m pretty sceptical myself about whether it will actually happen in the end.