The two speaker system is refreshing, but the time is right for them to crack the glass ceiling and move into Parliament in a meaningful way. Green Politics is now the centre. If that’s what the public wants – that they choose a single leader – then it makes sense.

Sad it didn’t work. But it does come across as being engineered (1 woman, 1 man) as opposed to merit-based.

If the atmosphere of the last few weeks becomes the norm over the course of this parliament and Labour look like losing I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a new found enthusiasm for some sort of PR. Toynbee et al have been urging as much for some time as a way of cementing a liberal / left alliance in Government against a resurgent Tory party.

In those circumstances parties like the Greens assume a far greater importance so they need to organise themselves accordingly – this seems like a sensible first step.

Reminds me of the story of an old colonial in India who saw a spade with a rope attached and asked what i was for. He was told by a worker that one man pushed the spade into the ground and another pulled it out, using the attached rope. ‘What’s the point of that?’ asked the old colonial gent. ‘It is, replied the worker, “to allow two men to do the job of one”. Boom, boom.

The baleful history of the Liberal-SDP Alliance between 1981-87 ought to be enough to persuade the Greens that having two leaders is unworkable.

While no-one would deny that the Green Party have principles, their two speakers are principal.

I doubt many of the voting public that would vote green do so because of anything more than local politics anyway, I wonder how many even really know that they don’t have the “one leader” dynamic?

I am very dubious about the image that two principal speakers gives out. It suggests a preference for being alternative over being professional. It allows people to pigeonhole greens as quasi-hippies and members of an ‘alternative culture’ which has little to do with the average Briton. If we’re going to tackle climate change effectively I believe it is vital that ‘greens’ (both the party and the movement in general) stop being easily classified as sandal wearing idealists with no sense of what is practically possible. Having a recognisable leader and a more standard party organisation is essential for that image.

I think it does matter, the two speaker thing causes confusion in the public mind, you’re never sure who is the spokesperson for the party when you see different faces on the news. Building up a profile of a leader will compliment electoral success but wont create unless you go as far as Labour did with Blair.

I hope they retain the current system, but then I’m quite contrary. For one, it guarantees both genders a voice at the top of the party, something that no other political party can guarantee. Sure, it’s positive discrimination, but it’s done in quite a neat way so that it does not appear to offend anyone. And as it happens, I think that wassername is way better than wassisname, because she doesn’t come across as an ex-commie.

It is still a mystery to me, despite 13 years of membership – now in the past – that the Green Party in particular should have such a strong faith in structure and a distrust of its leaders to the point of organisational dysfunctionality. Whatever the reason it is to many a key part of the party’s identity.

While I think the problem is with the message, not the presentation, it does make sense for them to want to have another go at better presentation.

But a leader will mean a better quality of scrutiny of the party’s message. When that scrutiny begins to hurt, the question is will they work on the message, or blame the leader, and leadership in general.

The primary intention, iirc, of having two principal speakers was an attempt to avoid creating a media celebrity or “Leader” — something that I supported then and still do.
Plus it reinforces the Greens’ insistence that “it’s the message, not the messenger”.

If you folks are serious about combining strengths across the Liberal/Left spectrum you could at least attempt some research before criticising!

If the Green party goes down the road of just doing what the other two parties are doing then they become entirely pointless.

The primary intention, iirc, of having two principal speakers was an attempt to avoid creating a media celebrity or “Leader” — something that I supported then and still do.

Ceedee, I think that is a problem in itself. I’d challenge the notion of being different for the sake of being different, without the structure offering clear benefits.

What are the clear benefits of having two speakers versus on speaker? Shouldn’t this be more about getting Green Party ideas into the public conversation rather than being different for its own sake?

Never mind the benefits of one speaker versus two – exactly what is one speaker going to say?

As far as the vast majority of the electorate is concerned the Green Party is a single issue fringe group of borderline relevance to their lives.

Until it can meaningfully articulate its policies in the context of ordinary people’s everyday existence it will remain as such. An informed analysis of sustainability is one thing; my job, my school, my health is something altogether different.

The Green Party could, and should, have a massive amount to contribute to the debate about our future. Messing around with an internal structure suggests it isn’t about to make a telling contribution.

The idea that the Green Party isn’t mainstream will stop larger numbers of voters who consider themselves ‘normal’ from choosing to mark their ballot papers in the Green Party’s favour.

It is a paradox that any distinctness preserved by having the dual principle speakers only reinforces their otherness and continues to minimise any potential appeal they may claim to posess and it is one that I don’t see them overcoming any time in the near future.

For the Greens to access the promised land of greater representation they must actually represent a wider segment of society than they current attempt, so it will be no wonder that they continue to languish in obscurity.

The lack of parliamentary representation for the Greens also does them no favours when it comes to any arguments they make for electoral reform, as their position is easily dismissed as self-interested rather than for the benefit of politics in general – they have nothing to lose, so they can only gain. What good are they for the rest of us?

Additionally their root and branch consternation at the (very real) inadequacies of our democracy tends towards revolutionary rather than reformist, which undermines the actual practice of politics as well as any confidence we may have in their ability.

So while I can clearly see the appeal of the Green Party to those who wish to build incoherent coalitions to gain power, frankly, I don’t see that their current philosophy or policies have any relevance, nice people they may nevertheless be. Any success they achieve can be put down to systemic failure whether at local or national level, not as a result of any qualities they demonstrate.