A green party split could become a serious electoral issue in seats such as Brighton, where the greens have a strong presence in a four-way split seat.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Isn’t a party split a sign the party is coming of age?

“Can the Greens avoid factional fighting?”

To quote my favourite American politician:

YES WE CAN!

Obama/Sebelius ’08
Lucas/Ramsay ’08

It is a shame that such a negative line has been taken at a time when Green poll ratings are clearly starting to do something both unusual and positive. Both Populus and ComRes have recorded 5% support for the Green party in the last month, with Ipsos MORI recording Green support at 4%. These are unprompted levels of support for a General Election, with the question asking only about support for Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. These typically understate our actual level of support.

My letter in response to the Indy article was published, but with three out of four paragraphs removed http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-nato-and-the-taliban-885216.html

I wonder which side will get the support of the pro-nuclear lobby and George Monbiot?

Recent statistical samples which have given Greens a poll rating of 4-5% have been shown to be anomolous (in one case the difference was one respondent), and anyway this is still within accepted margins for error.

—- “This isn’t an issue because no-one proposed to publish members’ details – and no-one asked for them. The members quoted in opposition deliberately distort the debate which did take place.”

1. Utter rubbish – if anyone’s distorting the debate, its whoever has contributed to writing this article and those in the pro-leader camp who are quickly trying to rub the tracks out in the sand behind them. The main protagonists of the proposals to potentially breach the DPA were those who are in the pro-leader camp.

2. The candidates only changed their minds after enough of the membership across the Party got wind of what was being proposed, didn’t like what was happening and – more importantly – the undemocratic way in which it was being pushed through without consultation. Hence the out of date Indy quote.
———————————

— “So whence the Indy column? A major block of candidates within the Greens have argued that candidates should be allowed to contact members through the party, so real campaigning could actually take place.”

1. A major block? I am not aware of any organised and open group in the Party advocating these undemocratic changes and, if anything, more “blocks” have opposed the changes on the basis of protecting civil liberties and preventing the Party from becoming an internal plutocracy, with candidates being allowed to spend £2500 on building their cult of personality!

———————————

—“But a small rump of activists, centred around Derek Wall, disagree. They wrote a letter accusing the Standing Orders Committee of planning to publish member details, failing to cite evidence. They claim this represents an anguished majority in the party; a majority so anguished that only some 100 of some 7000 members felt slighted enough to sign the letter. Some of whom, presumably, only signed the letter because they accepted the letter’s distortion of reality at face value.”

1. Most of Green Left are atheists and don’t worship or centre themselves around anyone – not even Derek! To argue that GL is “centred” around any one person is simplistic in the extreme. Most of us oppose having a leader remember?

2. The evidence of SOC’s intentions is in the countless emails from members of SOC advocating the changes, and their failing to rebut any of the concerns that many members have.

3. More members opposed the changes than were aware and supported them. The fact that so few members were aware of what would happen to their data is precisely the problem!
———————————

— “Green Empowerment, effectively led by Derek Wall and populated by his followers in Green Left, campaigned against the motion. “

1. I presume the irony of the suggestion that an “anti-leadership” campaign would be “led” by anyone will not be lost on anyone who reads this grossly uninformed piece?
———————————

— “When Caroline Lucas launched her leadership campaign, Wall refused to stand, presumably so that Lucas’ likely victory, were it not for the timely candidacy of Ashley Gunstock, could be portrayed as an undemocratic coronation.”

1. I am sure we would all welcome evidence of this libellous accusation – if it were true! However, given it is entirely rubbish you would struggle to provide even the suspicion that this scandalous allegation is even remotely plausible. I suggest you retract this.

———————————
— “He made unfounded accusations on closed e-mail lists and then in public. He has misrepresented Lucas and Ramsay in this debate and others.”

1. How someone can be “misrepresented” by having emails they have personally typed and sent published, I have no idea! The emails you have linked to are carbon copies of those sent by people involved. I still have them in my inbox if anyone is an any doubt.
———————————

— “Green Left are prominent only by their absence from this year’s Green Party Executive Elections. They accuse Lucas and Ramsay of forming an elitist, centralising faction; and yet most of their business takes place on closed e-mail lists.”

1. Our email lists are open to anyone currently. From October they will be open to anyone who wishes to pay the £5 subscription. There is no elitism or political vetting of members as you imply. Another lie

“Liberal conspiracy” is perhaps too flattering. You have either been getting this “info” straight from Caroline’s Press Office, or more likely David Icke. Perhaps “Liberal Lunacy” is more fitting?

Can the Greens avoid factional fighting? Well, unless we want to become some tiny sect there are always going to be different tendencies/factions. I think Jim wrote a blog post about it some time ago?

I find the conflation between Green Left and Green Empowerment to be a bit off the mark too. Yes, there’s a degree of overlap in their membership. However, if there were ‘leaders’ of the GE campaign I would have said they were Jenny Jones and Jonathan Dixon, who to my mind represent a different tendency to Derek’s. But, this is all bit anorakish! The fact is we’re a growing party and it’s inevitable that we disagree on some stuff. I think this has actually cooled off in the last week, and I hope we can all go to conference with a bit of perspective and have a constructive time… I’m not sure that posts like this (wrongly, I think) inferring that there’s some grand green left conspiracy do much to advance that.

How we can manage our differences as we grow might be a more useful thing for us to spend time thinking about!

James – I’m afraid you rather prove my point. At no stage do you engage with the thrust of the article, and what argument you make distorts the truth. At no stage did anyone in the Party – neither SOC or the candidates – suggest we should publish membership details as outlined in the Indy piece.

Other complaints are just trivial. I say the rump centres on Wall; insomuch as he’s by far their most coherent and prominent spokesman, that’s very true. He provides leadership to the faction – that’s undeniable, surely? You might be opposed to an elected party leader, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have senior figures – and in particular, a most senior figure – who dominate your discussion.

As for your accusation of libel – I’ll retract the wording if it offends you so much. It addresses a serious point though, if in vigorous terms. Neither Derek nor the majority of prominent Green Left activists have stood in this year’s GPEX elections and given the membership the chance to show their support or otherwise for their ideals. They have undeniably refused to engage with the democratic mechanisms of the party. And yet they’re willing to accuse those who do engage with the membership as krypto-fascists. Why?

Pippa – I agree, mostly. We do need to spend more time focusing on how we can manage those areas we disagree over. But when a blatantly misrepresentative article appears in the national press, and a small group within the party snipe from the sidelines rather than actually engage with party democracy, something needs to be said, surely?

- James.

Do you know what the word publish means? There is a world of difference between making data available to selected GP members for GP purposes and “publishing” members personal details – which is clearly both an inaccurate and sensationalised way of reporting the issue. I actually thought the Independent was guilty of sloppy journalism here but it now seems that some members are actually saying this was the proposal – which it clearly was not.

I’m sure you’re a lovely chap but throwing around phrases like “building cult of personality” makes you look a little ill considered frankly – particularly when you bear in mind that Caroline in particular had to be persuaded to stand for the leadership position – far from the power hungry liar you have chosen to make her out to be.

“I presume the irony of the suggestion that an “anti-leadership” campaign would be “led” by anyone will not be lost on anyone who reads this grossly uninformed piece?” The irony isn’t lost on some people – but it’s an inconsistency that lies in the real world, not this article.

There are natural tendencies in political campaigning, particularly in formalised groupings (like in this case the Green Left) all that’s required is a calm and self critical approach to the way individuals can, unintentionally sometimes, centre too much power in their own hands (by always being the one to head a table of speakers, or by having the ability to speak for a group, even when there is no concensus for example). However, I guess you’re feeling a bit defensive at the moment so it’s probably not the place to have a more interesting and thoughtful discussion about these issues.

Pippa – I agree that GL were not the leaders of the Empowerment campaign by a long way. Well respected activists like Jenny Jones and Sharar Ali were clearly seen by members on both sides of the debate as the “best part” of the no to a leader debate. So, yes, it’s quite wrong to conflate the two – just as not everyone on the left of the Greens opposed having a leader.

I don’t really agree Doug. I actually think this is a storm in a teacup. I doubt many people took much notice of the article and fewer still would have felt less inclined to vote green having read it.

I also think that there were more people than just the kind of left of green left that were upset by the Gaunts stuff, right on the heels of the byelection stuff etc. I know that I’m not alone in wanting a party that is organised and effective but that also values and places at its heart participatory democracy and have been left feeling a bit deflated by seeing us fall short of that. I have friends and people that I really like and respect in both factions and my hope is that we can all get serious about internal democracy as well as professionalisation going forward.

“Liberal conspiracy” is perhaps too flattering. You have either been getting this “info” straight from Caroline’s Press Office, or more likely David Icke. Perhaps “Liberal Lunacy” is more fitting?

Wait. A bunch of Trots are accusing LC of lunacy? That’s pretty amusing.

First, where’s the evidence the membership details were going to be released?

Secondly, the Green Yes campaign won. Overwhelmingly. Get over it.

Pippa: I know that I’m not alone in wanting a party that is organised and effective but that also values and places at its heart participatory democracy and have been left feeling a bit deflated by seeing us fall short of that.

I’m not sure I hold out much hope for that. Ideological purity is a nice theory but in practice you have a trade-off between what you want as a party and what the people want. I’m not saying the Greens should become New Labour but pragmatic revolutionaries take the world as it is now how it should be as the beginning point.

And it seems to me, by Derek Wall not standing in the elections, and the post above by James, that the Green Left much prefer sniping from the sidelines than having an open debate about how to take the party forward. The membership voted for one leader – now its time to put up or shut up, without bandying about silly phrases like “cult of personality”.

- Doug
The thrust of your article is riddled with falsehoods, focussing on the inaccuracy of the Indy and doing a hatchet job on Derek, rather than the accuracy of our valid complaints. There is quite frankly little substance to actually engage with.

If you regard the proposed unlawful release of people’s personal details to candidates, the introduction of plutocracy into the internal elections of the Party and invite only events where members are regarded as “troops” as “trivial”, then I suggest you read the MFSS more closely. You don’t need to be an out of the closet Marxist to object to such a fundamental undermining of political equality.
Finally, the idea that anyone in the Green Party could be described as “krypto-fascist” is yet another straw-man argument that requires no reply.

- Jim
Of course I am aware of what the word “publish” means, but was not referring to the diversionary argument of this blog that because the Indy was sloppy, as you rightly say, that there is no case to answer regarding those who were planning to breach the DPA. We are still waiting for the publishing of the “legal advice” that GPEX have paid for with our money to argue that it would not be a breach of the DPA. Until then, I am happy to vest faith in the advice from Bindmans, the prominent civil liberties solicitors which argues the contrary.

I was instead referring to the plan to release members data to candidates which is what our letter objects to. I’m not sure why the Indy assumed that members’ data would be “published”, where and what purpose this would serve. However, the proposal to even release member’s data to candidates was itself a breach of the DPA and this what I am referring to and what has been opposed by over 100 members including I believe Jenny Jones.

When I refer to “cults of personality”, I am not really bothered who is doing it and for what political end, but the fact that the entire validity and electoral credibility of our Party is being increasingly hinged on the talents (of which she has many) of one person. This is very dangerous for internal democracy given if Caroline, once elected at the next GE as I believe and hope she will be, makes a policy announcement (e.g. going into coalition in a hung parliament), the majority of the party and its growing oligarchy will dance to her tune, as nearly happened regarding the H&H by-election. For those reading this who know about Gaunts, I think it is hard to have anything but utter concern for the direction that the oligarchy is going in without any checks and balances existing within the Party on our representatives. I have never met Caroline but admire her stance on many issues, such as Palestine and would vote for her above most politicians in public elections. However, whilst there was a time when I would have happily voted for Caroline in an internal election, given what I know now either about her or, if what you say is true, then the people around her, I’m afraid I cannot vote for someone who appears to be pulling the Party behind her rather staying true to the very principles that used the make us unique in our radicalism.

- Sunny

The majority did vote for a leader. However, there was an abuse of the rules in that the Yes campaign were using Party data to canvass people via telephone. This is currently being investigated. Gaunts alone shows that the idea that Green hierarchical leadership is any better than any other form of single leadership is bunk.
Send me your email address (james.caspell(at)gmail.com) and I will send you evidence that data was going to be released. For those on the various internal lists, this was abundant.

I’m off to join the People’s Popular Front of Judea.

OK James – I’ll accept you did not mean to imply that there was a proposal to publish members data – although I’m sure if you look back at your original post you’ll see why someone might get that impression – as this is the very section you quote. But fine.

What I do need to correct is this rubbish about the referendum being wonky. The investigations have taken place (past tense) and found the referendum to be free and fair and every level of the party has agreed that. This wasn’t even raised an issue at the conference that ratified the referendum.

There were some breaches of the rules (on both sides as it happens) – everyone accepts this and it is in the official signing off statement – the only issue to answer was whether these breaches had a material impact on the result. The party has found that they did not, and conference found this completely uncontroversial.

I think you’re confusing grumblings of a *very* few members on this with the clear mandate of the party at every formal level (conference, GPRC, GPEx, SOC).

Anyway – the key thing I’m interested in is what the problem with “Gaunts” actually is. I’ve seen people going on about it – but no one has ever laid out the case about what was inappropriate or damaging.

It can’t be that people meet up, it can’t be that it involved training, it can’t be the fact that some of these people were pro-leader, it can’t be that it wasn’t open invite (as this happens constantly by everyone) – unless every conversation is a plot and every meet up is secret, but you’d go mad if that was the case – and you’d certainly have to be guilty of double standards.

canvassing people via telephone! letting members be contacted by candidates for official party positions details!

that sounds to me suscipiciously like candidates in an election communicating directly with the electorate, how outrageous! Bloody democrats, next you’ll be complaining about comrade Putin.

Jim – I can see why this may have been interpreted, but as you will no doubt know, the pre-Indy internal dispute was not about “publishing” data, but releasing it, and this is what motivated me to reply in the first place as Douglas seems to ignore these valid concerns. In fairness, he may have only come across all of this in the Indy and on blogs so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

I’m afraid you are wrong about the referendum investigation being past tense. London Fed sent a motion to GPRC to carry out the investigation, which they have now sent back down to London Fed to decide whether to take action. This was discussed at the last London Fed meeting. An ad-hoc committee is now looking into the legality of the way forward.

Re Gaunts it’s the fact that it involved people attending by virtue of being Green Party reps in a clandestine invite only meeting. This was not a drink in the pub, but a formal meeting with workshops and agenda items discussing how the party should operate and who should be doing the operating. How this fits with the idea of transparency, accountability and openness beggars belief!?

The minutes even had to be leaked out for anyone to know it had happened and what was being discussed by this cabal of the Party’s representatives, who even had time for some AmDram theatrics to “role-play” different types of leadership! Topics included “Leading with authority” and “Motivating demoralised troops”. Hardly the language of the liberal left is it? Probably more at home with Comrade Putin…

There is also the issue that Caroline is cited in the leaked minutes as requesting that GPEX is essentially stacked with favourable candidates. Fine, you may say, GL could do the same. However GL publishes its minutes within 24 hours on its website and its meetings are open to members.

Matthew

- This would be fine if members had consented to having their data given to *anyone* who gets 20 signatures to stand as a candidate. It would also be fine if each candidate was given identical resources (i.e. telephone lines and costs covered) in order to ensure a level electoral playing field.

Neither condition was satisfied and therefore the proposals are illegal and undemocratic.

Jmaes, you say all this, but none of the people being critical stood against Caroline. If everything is so awful, why didn’t you challenge her, if only to put the debate into the open?

I think it is really quite dreadful to make these sort of accusations about “stacking” when the reality is that an open election is going on and nearly all the positions have only one candidate because nobody else has stood.

Could it be that Caroline was desperate to encourage decent candidates to stand, as it is very difficult to get anyone to stand at all?

Matthew
The point is not chiefly about people being contacted, informed or canvassed, (though it would be nice if people could be informed of their right not to be pestered if they wish) the point is about those with more financial resources being advantaged in contrast to participants in elections (such as in most unions) where equal amounts of info is allowed for all candidates in a booklet. The point is about SOC and the ERO shifting goalposts, and the ERO announcing in an arrogant way that he would ignore any comments that he was riding roughshod over agreements and compromises reached by representative party bodies like GPRC, until very strong legal argument came through from Bindmans and the ERO, SOC and candidates all beat a hasty retreat…. The point is about a party that stands up for civil liberties and privacy not deliberately flouting the DPA (and what is more deliberately flouting the Law not on a point of principal, but as an expedient move in an internal election)

Jim,
I would suggest that you read carefully the now revealed pre-Gaunts minutes. They do seem to suggest a manipulative and high handed approach at the least, if not the intention to abuse positions on supposedly impartial party bodies. Personally I also question the use of Shakespeare to teach us very much about modern progressive politics – we’re not talking Brecht here, but Shakespeare – who wrote Coriolanus and the Merchant of Venice FFS! But then from the left the whole Gaunts thing looks to me like another example of ostensibly “progressive” Greens allowing themselves to be taken for a ride by “traditionalist” elements of the establishment whose “green” ideas come from some of the murkier political and religious trends of the past.

Sunny,
As a supporter of Green Left and someone who styles themselves variously as a libertarian socialist or syndicalist I take offence at your attempted smear of us as “Trots”. Green Left are not “Trots”. Some of us may be Marxists of a democratic or libertarian stripe, (others would simply call themselves democratic socialists or ecosocialists or just socialists) but we totally oppose so-called “democratic” centralism and sectarianism and hierarchy characteristic of most of the Trotskyist groups – hence our opposition to any behaviour from whatever wing of the Green Movement that leans towards these behaviours. Green Left is an open group and publishes minutes on its’ website. Now some might see this as ill advised, but no-one could describe it as underhand.

Douglas
The whole tone of the original article is aggressive and unhelpful – perhaps an attempt at blogging in the style of the foam-flecked right, eh Douglas? First get your facts right. Then stop trying to generalise about groups of people like some Daily Mail Op Ed. Then deal with the issues.
But then Guido, and Harry and Mr Dale don’t and it doesn’t hurt their Sitemeter stats, eh?
Mind you, they are right wing *****!

I’m off to join the People’s Popular Front of Judea.

SPLITTER!

James you say “I’m afraid you are wrong about the referendum investigation being past tense. London Fed sent a motion to GPRC to carry out the investigation, which they have now sent back down to London Fed to decide whether to take action. This was discussed at the last London Fed meeting. An ad-hoc committee is now looking into the legality of the way forward.” Ehh! I don’t understand this para.

You are getting a bit ranty. Best turn your computer off (at the wall) and get some sleep.

Douglas Coker
Enfield Green Party

Some of us may be Marxists of a democratic or libertarian stripe, (others would simply call themselves democratic socialists or ecosocialists or just socialists) but we totally oppose so-called “democratic” centralism and sectarianism and hierarchy characteristic of most of the Trotskyist groups

Yeah but the point here isn’t ideological, the point here is about how people behave. I’m not necessarily saying you’re all hard-left Marxists, but saying this behaviour (and I have been appalled at the sniping on Derek Wall’s blog and will take him off my blogroll) is akin to how Trots behave. Have an open debate. Publish the evidence – let the people decide.

All this rubbish about “cult of personality”, these insinuations that Caroline Lucas is being backed financially by various people etc is rather sad and typical of how Trots behave.

I’m not even in the Green party – but I can see how this is playing out and its quite typical. If Derek Wall had run for leadership I’d have been more than happy to give him space here to put his concerns across. Already I’ve contacted both the leadership candidates to flesh out their differences.

But I’m sorry this behaviour is very typical of the left in its infighting. And the hatchet job isn’t this article but whoever was behind the Indy diary piece. It certainly wasn’t from Caroline Lucas’ team was it?

Douglas Coker –

I concede the internal mechanics of the GP is complicated and I have no doubt failed to do it justice in a sentence or two, but the essence of it is that the dispute over the referendum is a live issue, not a past one.

I apologise if I am being “ranty”, but I will decide when I go to bed, though thank you for your concern

Sunny – I’ve posted stuff about Gaunts here for people to look at: http://jamescaspell.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-what-democracy-looks-likeor-is.html

Greenman – It’s right-wing to use strong wording now? That’ll be news to most blogging socialists, I imagine – perhaps you should wander over to somewhere like Lenin’s Tomb and persuade them they’re Tories too. (Or perhaps you’re trying to smear a member in favour of professionalisation as right-wing, as I’ve noticed often happening in these arguments. Despite those in favour of professionalisation espousing socialist policy…).

I wrote a vaguely polemic article, yes; in response to a situation which, frankly, needs strong words. There’s a small, but very loud, group within the party that constantly assaults candidates standing in democratic elections without presenting the general membership with an alternative platform to vote for. As Sunny says, sniping from the sidelines instead of open, democratic debate. Jim Killock, Sunny and I have all raised that in this thread, and it’s without doubt one of the most substansive points in the discussion. Green Left have barely given members a choice in the GPEX elections. I suggest that anyone trying to attack those who have stood – including Caroline – as enemies of party democracy first explain why they won’t fight for that democracy democratically. If they’d had trouble making themselves heard in what remains an open elections, I’d have more sympathy. But for as long as they snipe rather than stand, I find that very difficult.

*(Or perhaps you’re trying to smear a member in favour of professionalisation as right-wing, as I’ve noticed often happening in these arguments. Despite those in favour of professionalisation espousing socialist policy…).

Often espousing, I should say.

Very quickly – Sunny – unconvincing. Political labels like “Trot” are very specific. They are not about what you feel (in this case in an ill informed and prejudiced manner) about the behaviour of individuals and groups but about what they actually do and believe. Taking one example – the “insinuation” someone took from Derek’s comment about funding was wrong due to lack of knowledge of context – Derek named a specific amount of money because he was referring to spending limits (common to all and any candidates – though probably Caroline was the only one declared at that stage) rather than any inference about funding of her campaign.

I think it highly unlikely that most of Green Left would approve of the Indy article. I do not know how it got out – to insinuate otherwise is (in the light of the rest of your argument) unfortunate.

“Sniping” is an emotive word, introduced by Douglas. What is “sniping”? Is it publishing views on blogs and websites with comment facilities where debate can take place? Is it having an opinion you don’t happen to agree with? Democratic debate involves difference of opinion. It involves criticising the actions of groups and individuals if you disagree with them. “Put up or shut up” is the stance of the dictatorial and self important. ALL members of properly democratic organisations have a right to a say and an opinion, whether they have the time, skills and abilities to stand for office or not.

Douglas – professionalism. Yes. I would say a key element of political professionalism would be abiding by agreed democratically agreed policies and procedures, would you not?

I do not so much object to strong language as ill informed and deliberately confrontational prose that seeks to construct a straw man enemy, – in the time honoured manner of many rightist bloggers. It is ill fitting for someone who describes themselves as a socialist in a modern and democratic sense to adopt such methods of argument. I do not think Lenin’s Tomb is a good example to follow either! He, precisely politically speaking now, IS a (self defined) Trot.

Gosh – there’s quite a bit here so i guess I should confine myself to a few points only.

re shakespeare:

oh my yes – the event itself sounds horrific, like a gruesome team building exercise or something, shudder. However, I think there’s a difference between something looking very unattractive to go on and it being wrong for others to go on it. People play bingo every night of the week but just because I wouldn’t go there does not mean I go round denouncing bingo players.

Some of the event even looks rather politically suspect or illiterate – but without seeing the brochure or whatever I’d be loathe to draw conclusions about what it was actually like as a participant. Anyway I wasn’t invited so didn’t get a chance to reject the invitation [sob] in fact there are hundreds of political events every single day I’ve not been invited to – if I’m not careful I’ll start to develope a martyr complex!

Thank God I’m an adult and therefore don’t fly into a rage everytime something interesting happens without my presence. The key point here is proportion. People in political parties have different political perspectives. Parties without that are cults. Those different perspectives will discuss things amongst themselves – in private – and that’s fine – GL members don’t discuss everything on list or minute every decision they take because they aren’t idiots. It’s a shame there isn’t more clarity from that side that this is the case.

GL members have rather been giving the impression that if the shoe was on the other foot and they were standing for, and were elected to the executive, they’d be a round of vicious purging of everyone whose face did not fit – as it is we’re spared the gulag for now.

re investigation

So I was right – there is no investigation. And as it happens GPRC made a decision not to take any further action. London Fed can continue to discuss if they so choose, and they can even appoint an “ad hoc committee” but they are obviously wasting their own time if they do so and are in danger of going out of their way to humiliate themselves, totally unnescesarily for no particular benefit.

If there were sustainable concerns why were they not raised through the democratic structures of the party? Any member can go to conference and any conference goer could have raised this. Not mentioned. At all. By anyone. In one of the most easily accessible political processes any party in this country has. You don’t need a regional fed to do this – that approach to the issue is just weird – and mores to the point completely ineffective. There has never even been a formal complaint to the SOC or ERO – and Christ alone knows people complain to them about everything else.

Not one email sent to the appropriate people questioning the authenticity of the result. Not one. The time to challenge the result has long gone – as GPRC realised when they decided they didn’t want to proceed with this.

re trots

I think this kind of name calling and political labelling is extremely unhelpful. It’s often inaccurate but more importantly it leads to entrenched, dogmatic thinking even when it happens to be correct.

It’s just as bad as the silly assumption that everyone who doesn’t sympathise with this current storm in a tea cup must be part of a “leadership clique” or writing pieces informed direct by Caroline’s press office – who I’m sure have actual work to do. It simply dismisses the idea that people can think for themselves and should be treated as individuals.

This sort of method of argument simply doesn’t persuade anyone of anything except unreasonable emnity. It seems to me it’s far better to engage with the arguments as they have been raised – rather than to tackle the man not the ball.

The majority of political people in this country (from whatever party or none) are usually able to politically disagree with an ally on a specific issue without denouncing them from the rooftops and categorising them forever as an other, be that trot, part of the leader clique or whatever.

It’s not possible to innoculate anyone from being wrong, but we can prevent discussion becoming a sterile slanging match between people who aren’t listening to each other.

re approve of the indy article

I only know about the article because it was raised approvingly by a member of Green Left, but I have no idea what the majority think of it. I do know I’ve seen one GL member (Gordon) raise the fact that it had innaccuracies which I think demonstrates an honest and open mind. Rightly he refused to make capital out of it and his arguments are the stronger for it.

Considering the scale of the inaccuracies in the Indy piece I’m only surprised that it’s one lone member who’s had the guts to come out and say “I’m not associating myself with this”.

Incidentally if you don’t believe that a member of GL fed this story to the press there was clearly a secret meeting you were not invited to. Tut.

Hi greenman, you say:
I think it highly unlikely that most of Green Left would approve of the Indy article. I do not know how it got out – to insinuate otherwise is (in the light of the rest of your argument) unfortunate.

Well, clearly someone is briefing against Caroline. Would love to see Green Left disassociating itself from all this backbiting then openly, and calling for party unity and open debate. Let’s see it.

Otherwise it just looks like the People’s Front for Judea type of politics.

The first lines of the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society are:

“The Green Party aims to create a just, equitable and sustainable society. We focus our efforts primarily, though not exclusively, through the electoral system.”

This means that as members, we sign up to a belief that such ends can be achieved through electoral means.

So my chief concern as a member of the Green Party is to communicate a positive message to the public that we have the most practical, sensible and fitting solutions to the problems of climate change, social injustice, and economic inequality; and that if elected to positions of responsibility, we will utilise those positions to implement those solutions. The public consists of 53 million people (i.e. England and Wales) and as I understand it their main issues are:

rising fuel prices
the credit crunch
affordable housing
employment
quality of life
environmental destruction
a lack of a response to all of the above from our current political representatives

In some urban centres (such as London), the increasing incidence of violent death among young people is also a major issue, as is our general approach to young people across the country.

Whilst we might disagree over how to address these issues, I hope there is a consensus that what we should spend our time working out how to solve these problems, forming them into policies that can be enacted, and then communicating our ideas to the electorate. (http://rayyanmirza.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/changing-the-world-one-doorstep-at-a-time/)

Caroline Lucas MEP, along with others such as the New Economics Foundation, have already begun to do this with the brilliant and timely Green New Deal (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3493) – now it is up to us to spread the message.

It is unfortunate someone from the Green Party acted as an enabler for this inaccurate Indy article, rather than getting on with actually changing the world. I am not au fait with the legal dimensions of whether or not candidates in an internal election can contact members directly, but it does seem ludicrous that it is undemocratic to do so, as has been suggested by some here – if a member is to make an informed decision over who to vote for, they need as much information as possible, otherwise democracy cannot work.

If there are divisions, the best way to deal with them is by presenting alternative platforms through electoral channels, as has been suggested by both Jim J, Jim Killock, Sunny and Doug – this way, the debate is out in the open and does not happen on e-mail lists.

Once we elect our new Leaders and Executive, we must finally lay this issue to rest – the referendum happened over nine months ago – and get on with the task of presenting the public with a progressive, alternative view of politics that they can endorse and get involved in.

I’m not sure I hold out much hope for that. Ideological purity is a nice theory but in practice you have a trade-off between what you want as a party and what the people want. I’m not saying the Greens should become New Labour but pragmatic revolutionaries take the world as it is now how it should be as the beginning point.

Sunny, I’m a former member of the Australian Greens who are far more effective and professional than us over here AND far more committed to participatory democracy. Partly (mostly?) their greater electoral success and membership is because of the more democratic electoral system and public funding, but that experience has shown me that you can happily have both. At any rate I think there are strong reasons for celebrating and entrenching our distinctive political tradition for branding reasons. I could go on but I have to get to work!

Hi, I posted a comment here about the need to focus our attention on developing our policies then communicating them to the public, rather than only engaging in destructive internal navel-gazing. Can someone tell me where it went?

Hi Pippa,

I think we are all concerned about having a deeper democratic culture. Greater participation and forcing candidates to communicate with members was precisely the reason why canvassing was suggested, I believe.

It is certainly why I think this should be applied to the leadership candidates: I think allowing incumbent leaders the massive advantage of communicating with members for two years, and then refusing challengers the means to communicate with those same members is deeply undemocratic and very one sided.

Jim

Jim,

The argument as you frame it is laudable.

However, do you not think in order to maintain a level playing field, that the finance and resources required for candidates to be able to communicate with all members should be provided centrally?

Otherwise, how else can you claim for such an election to be fair if it is in *any* way based on the ability for candidates to raise money or “motivate troops, so to speak, rather than support for their politics and abilities?

James

Hi James

I would personally be happy with very low expense limits, but there are some costs like travel expenses and phone calls, and possibly printing of leaflets that are arguably up to candidates to provide. It would be best if postage was met by the party – imagine the cost of posting a leaflet to our 40,000 members in the future!

We can discuss which costs should be paid for by the party, and what limits are acceptable, at a future conference – which is the right place for these decisions.

Thank you for a constructive response.

Jim

Why on earth would the Green party be printing out leaflets, then paying to have them driven around the country to be delivered to people they are already in full contact with? Don’t these guys have email addresses? Think of the environment!

Hi Jim,

I agree this needs fuller discussion and think that many people behind these proposals have the best intentions, though I maintain that the process has been indefensible.

As an eco-socialist, I wouldn’t personally be happy with anything other than blanket centralised and equal funding/resourcing by virtue of someone qualifying as a candidate. I’m thinking how the London Mayoral booklet is distributed (if we ignore the disgusting price of the deposit)!

Plutocracy is bad enough in external elections (where I believe our money should be directed); we shouldn’t be replicating it internally. Therefore the arguments are both on principle but also in terms of opportunity cost.

I agree with greater participation (who doesn’t?), but we can do that through online video hustings, better election mail outs and downloadable election statements organised by the Party, not candidates, many of whom, as you imply, do not have the experience, knowledge or “machine” to challenge incumbents without the Party’s assistance.

We don’t need to create a free for all (of any financial amount) within the Party which will mean the poorer a member is, the less able they would be to compete in an internal election.

In short, I think we should “be the change we wish to see”. This is why I joined the GP and not a top-down far left organisation that postpones radical examples of change until after the revolution

Have a good weekend,

James

Hi James

The London Mayoral booklet is a good example and very like what is being produced this time round. And it is free to Executive candidates. Perhaps this should be the model, without further leaflets – we can discuss the merits of that at a future Conference.

In relation to canvassing, I think the Leadership election is different, though, because it a big and important choice, and leaders should be made to justify themselves to the members.

Leadership elections are not a level playing field. Serious candidates, with a real chance of being elected, are likely to be MPs, MEPs or at least Council leaders in the future, because the party will want to elect leaders who have already shown leadership and have a public profile.

They should be able to find people to help campaign for them, indeed, I would say if they can’t find five or ten unpaid helpers to do some work for them, they won’t be able to do the job.

What we have to ensure is that big personalities are selected on their merits, rather than pure incumbency, which is why I argue that they should be phoning members up. If someone new or unexpected has a case, they need the chance to make it.

I also think that if members are not asked personally about their thoughts by real people with real influence, then we risk a serious sense of disengagement, which leads to low levels of activism. The members own the party – we need to respect that, and involve all of them in some key decisions. That’s how I see it anyway.

All the best,

Jim

“The Green Party aims to create a just, equitable and sustainable society. We focus our efforts primarily, though not exclusively, through the electoral system.”

Those are the opening lines of the MfSS. As members, it is our primary duty to develop the best policies to create a better society and then to communicate them to the public so they can make an informed decision at the ballot box.

As I have argued previously (http://rayyanmirza.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/changing-the-world-one-doorstep-at-a-time/) part of carrying out our duty requires us to be organised and for us to have effective leadership. However, if candidates for our leadership positions do not do their utmost to connect with members and make the case for why they should be our leader and represent us to the public, then members cannot make an infomed decision when they vote.

By all means, we should have online video hustings and better mailouts; but nothing allows us to get our message across than face-to-face or over-the-phone communication. This requires canvassing, and it is the most democratic way of doing things. It allows for a conversation to take place, which is not quite replicable by internet forums and e-mail lists. I know of Caroline’s record very well, and so far, whilst impressed by Ashley’s record, he has not yet convinced me to vote for him instead of her. However, if he phoned me, I would be able to make up my mind once and for all either way. It is why we canvass on the doorstep, rather than just putting leaflets through doors or telling people to watch a video on our website.

The public are concerned with a number of really big issues: the credit crunch, rising fuel prices, rising food prices, affordable housing, and the future of the environment. We should spend our time discussing those issues and how best to address them, and we should make sure we choose the right leader to communicate our policies to the public: we have to make an informed decision about our leader so the public can make an informed decision about our policies.

Rayyan, the spam filter held your comment for moderation. I’ve just approved it.

Thanks Sunny – it was probably because I put hyperlinks in the text!

Douglas Johnson’s original article is a very crude caracature of what Green Left is, which is a pretty loose collection of individuals with different positions on most issues!
Green Left has been very open and democratic (perhaps too open)
Unlike Derek Wall I’m not a Marxist, more a Murray Bookchinite but I share his analysis that capitalism can’t fix the planet!

If Derek Wall had stood against Caroline, no doubt he would have been accused of hypocracy as why should someone against a leader be a leader!

Associating Green Left with Green Empowerment is particularly innacurate – Jenny Jones, Johnathan Dixon, Adrian Windisch, the Late Tim Beaumont for example, none of them Green Left! I attended a number of GL meetings where a minority indicated they were actually pro -leader!

I’m actually glad all this has come out in to the open. Most of the discussion here has been quite constructive! (at least on this blog)

We are NOT going to split, dissent and disagreement is a sign we are a plural party and not a small irrelevant sect.

I do agree with James Caspell on how elections should be organised, a level playing field!

It is important we remain a “big tent” with Eco-Socialists, Radical Green Liberals, Green Social Democrats all playing their part.

“[the Green party] must communicate… that we have the most practical, sensible and fitting solutions to the problems of climate change, social injustice, and economic inequality; and that if elected to positions of responsibility, we will utilise those positions to implement those solutions”

But do the Greens have those policies? What is the Greens’ claim to exclusivity on the truth?

Greens are unlikely to get elected, so are unable to utilise any position to implement anything.

-

Ideological purity vs pluralism – what do principles mean to you?

How can you reconcile democratic equality with democratic difference?

How are the Greens different to all the other parties when they try to be the same but better?

These are some of the crunch issues which are yet to be resolved within the Greens and prevent the party from being taken seriously.

Thomas – firstly there are elected Greens already. Many of them are extremely effective.

Secondly the Green core principles (which you can find on the website) actually explicitly state that the Greens *do not* have a monopoly on the truth – which must make us the most honest party in the country.

So what is the point of the Greens?

Announcements that Greens welcome the chance to cooperate in coalitions as junior partners proves the Greens don’t represent any independent intellectual or philosophical tradition and you are just a subsidiary faction to other parties – which must show you to be the most dishonest party in the country.

There are a few elected Greens already, most of them are completely irrelevant.

See – I can invert your assertions with equal accuracy.

There are a few elected Greens already, most of them are completely irrelevant.

See – I can invert your assertions with equal accuracy.

thomas, apart from the silly ad hominems dressed up as political debate, what is the point of such questioning if you can’t even be bothered to read any of the policies and criticise them on that basis? Should all smaller parties not even bother to exist? Do they not have a point? Would you prefer a democracy with only two major parties, so you can self-importantly declare their elected representatives make no difference? Is this some bizarre idea of political dicussion?

Actually the two Green reps on the London Assembly did have an impact – Ken needed them to pass his budget and thus worked with them on several policies. Yes, coalition building can happen, providing the political structures allow it.

Announcements that Greens welcome the chance to cooperate in coalitions as junior partners proves the Greens don’t represent any independent intellectual or philosophical tradition and you are just a subsidiary faction to other parties

Its called mature politics Thomas. It happens all across Europe (*shock horror*) in any democracy that has something like a proportional system.

James, Pete still hasn’t added me to the GL lists, despite me being a member in England, and despite putting my email address onto his blog as one of the people interested in starting Green Left Scotland (possibly with a slightly different tack). I’d like to get my last few months of free open Green Left democracy if it really is out there.

Thomas, you can invert my statements but not with accuracy.

Green representatives are disproportionately *effective* whether that’s the MEPs, MSPs London AMs or councillors. Just take the trouble to investigate for yourself, it’s probably better for you than just making things up based on prejudice.

Cooperating with other parties (which all the major parties do) means bringing to bear our unique set of principles and applying it to make a difference – that’s not dishonesty, that’s politics. Only an utter idiot would think that working with other people means you stop having your own beliefs and principles.

Well done.

Sunny, I don’t think I’m the first person here to question whether this thread is an exercise in navel gazing, an advert to propagandise for the Greens or a space for some real discussion about the relevance of the issues at hand, and if you read the comments you may get a sense of the suffocating insularity and lack of balance which the Greens suffer from.

I’d prefer to leave criticism of Green policies to those best placed to do so, but it appears there is very little space for self-criticism only bickering – which is why the question of factional infighting is so interesting.

When prominent Greens like Caroline Lucas overhype the introduction of a speed restriction as ‘life-changing’ and ‘life-saving’ as an example of their impact, it does beg the question of their grasp on reality and actual relevance – I mean, what’s so different about the Greens? what’s so new about their approach that they can claim to have solved and resolved eternal conflicts?

If you want to talk about mature politics, Sunny, then I’ll be happy to listen to you admit the weaknesses inherent in your own biases and hear why coalitions aren’t necessarily a good thing. Or indeed what level of democracy is acceptable and how to define fairness and justice or whether Greens should be supporting the nuclear option, now or ever.

But it appears the those kinds of questions are too controversial even to be touched in a mature forum like LC!

Jim Jay,

you said “there are elected Greens already. Many of them are extremely effective”

I said “There are a few elected Greens already, most of them are completely irrelevant.”

you responded to say that “Green representatives are disproportionately effective” and that this contradicts my inversion of your assertion.

I respond that some Green representative may be effective, even highly so, but this does not contradict my inversion of your assertion and neither does it offer any proof that your assertion was true – you only attempt to reinforce one assertion with another.

May I ask: to what you do you compare the proportionate effectiveness of elected Green representatives and by what measure?

I’m intruiged at the way you use the opportunity of the medium to throw insults at the proposer of stock questions rather than to answer them, but that must of course be the progressive way.

“We are NOT going to split, dissent and disagreement is a sign we are a plural party and not a small irrelevant sect.”

“It is important we remain a “big tent” with Eco-Socialists, Radical Green Liberals, Green Social Democrats all playing their part.”

I think we can all agree on these points!

You’re a bit all overt the place thomas. If you have problem with the policy over nuclear energy, raise it. If you have an issue with positions they take – raise it.

But this:
Sunny, I don’t think I’m the first person here to question whether this thread is an exercise in navel gazing, an advert to propagandise for the Greens or a space for some real discussion about the relevance of the issues at hand, and if you read the comments you may get a sense of the suffocating insularity and lack of balance which the Greens suffer from.

is rather silly. This blog will host stuff on the Green party as it will over the other parties. You’re welcome to criticise all you want, but do it with some substance, yes? Don’t just start talking about how they’re useless wiothout actually reading what they’re saying. It just comes across as a bit lame to be honest. I can’t take you seriously when you say stuff like that.

then I’ll be happy to listen to you admit the weaknesses inherent in your own biases and hear why coalitions aren’t necessarily a good thing.

Its all about the context isn’t it.

Not at all, Sunny.

I respect the ideals of concern for the ecology of our planet, but I question how that translates into support for a particular political party.

In placing those questions I hope to gain some greater understanding. But whilst I continue to be fobbed off and dismissed as someoone who is not with the programme I will not be won over or convinced. While Greens continue to make assumptions about what they stand for they neglect to make convincing arguments for offering them support and close themselves off from gaining wider support.

It is healthy for the debate for individuals to be confronted by opposing views because debate is the method by which political controversy reaches productive conclusions – which the Green Party certainly needs if it is to remain relevant and grow it’s democratic representation.

I don’t believe the suppression of dissent is good for democracy, so I hardly think that any attempt I make to provoke discussion on those areas of internal contention for the Greens should be avoided. Why is it that outsiders who are members of their potential audience are treated with contempt? Do the Greens prefer it if they are neglected by the wider public? Is it not a matter of concern that there is a notable lack of contributions made in this thread by non-Greens?

As a resident non-partisan I’ve cast myself as a critic of the Greens in order to open up the debate on them and their ideas, not to offer my own criticisms, however easy it might be to draw your own conclusions from the responses provided.

Factional infighting is a good thing because it addresses the subjects of dispute and resolves them, so any tentative steps the Greens can make to open discussion on their contentious positions, such as nuclear policy and the level of internal democracy, will indicate that they are maturing as a political force. Equally, the opposite indicates the reverse may be true.

“I respect the ideals of concern for the ecology of our planet, but I question how that translates into support for a particular political party.”

A personal view from me Thomas comes from experience. You get individual Labour, Lib Dem and Tories who are all concerned about the environment. These individuals often take principled stances on the issues.

The problem for red, yellow and blue is that there is no consistency or principled decision making that guides their elected representatives on this. Let me give an example that is local to me.

I know that there are some Lib Dem councillors and members in Liverpool who are in the Green Lib Dems, but it must be difficult to reconcile your attempts to be “green” within the Lib Dems, with the practice of leading Lib Dems in actual positions of power http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/News/newsdetail_2008.asp

For those of us in the Greens, whatever our differences on other policy issues, there is a core philosophy that unites us and guides policy making. I think that is how I would respond to your point raised above. Others may have their own particular examples that could be shared.

Peter,

so is what you’re saying is that concern for the environment overrides all and any other concerns?

In which case why not be open about it and say that on day one of a Green government you’d close down all nuclear, coal and gas plants in the UK, ban all cars and close down all oil and gas producing platforms because the freedom to travel and heat your homes and cook food is less important than standing against the tide of climate change and wailing. After all lentils are highly nutritious and it’s fun to huddle together in the back of a cave.

Or are you saying that concern for the environment is one more factor to throw into the political mix, but you want to retain your independence and ability to criticise others?

Because why should you be prepared to give up your tools of technological advancement and convenience or set an example by preventing your elected representatives from taking unnecessary long journeys to make fact-finding/agitation missions to the sun (or Brussels)?

My point is that either the Greens are a political party, in which case your policy aims and arguments are largely inconsistent with your critical analysis, or a glorified lobby group, in which case your political ideals and actions are largely inconsistent with your criticisms of the other parties.

All of which means the only reason to support the Greens is to register your protest. Yay!

“In which case why not be open about it and say that on day one of a Green government you’d close down all nuclear, coal and gas plants in the UK, ban all cars and close down all oil and gas producing platforms because the freedom to travel and heat your homes and cook food is less important than standing against the tide of climate change and wailing. After all lentils are highly nutritious and it’s fun to huddle together in the back of a cave.”

Quite where did you draw the conclusion a Green government would do that on day one? Not one recent manifesto has claimed we should shut down everything, immediately; nor has one claimed it’s necessary. What they have said is necessary is a shift from centralised and polluting means of energy generation to a decentralised system based primarily in renewables if we’re to prevent climate change becoming catastrophic.

We’d do so by localising energy generation while gradually phasing out older plants as they became redundant; a move shown to be perfectly realisable in recent publications such as the Green New Deal. And, of course, a move which would increase the freedoms of the population. They’d be free from paying distant corporations extortionate prices to heat their home and cook, and at the same time potentially raise money by feeding any electricity generated but not used into the grid.

So, the only Green government which would reduce the world’s population to eternal lentil consumption is that found in your contrarian imagination.

“Or are you saying that concern for the environment is one more factor to throw into the political mix, but you want to retain your independence and ability to criticise others?”

Why are the two mutually exclusive? It’s perfectly possible to argue that the environment is but one (immensely serious) concern among many, whilst retaining political independence. Our policies – on the environment and elsewhere – are clearly independent of other parties. The government, for example, seems to approach the environment as an excuse to raise taxes; we disagree, and thus exist as a seperate political entity.

“My point is that either the Greens are a political party, in which case your policy aims and arguments are largely inconsistent with your critical analysis, or a glorified lobby group, in which case your political ideals and actions are largely inconsistent with your criticisms of the other parties.”

The Greens are a political party derived from a social movement. We seek to implement what that movement’s critical analysis demands through practical engagement with the political system. So they’re hardly inconsistent with each other; indeed, without the latter, the former becomes automatically insignificant.

Would you apply the same critique to other parties originally derived from movements? The Labour Party was originally derived from the labour movement and trade unions, and so treated labour rights as its primary concern. Did they lose the right to call themselves a Labour party when they applied the same analysis that supported calls for those working rights to other areas of life? An idea can form part of a platform of policies without losing its validity as part of that platform.

Thank you Doug, that’s a much better response which helps explain things more clearly to your potential audience.

Now, If I could draw you into some discussion.

Localising energy production and a phased introduction/reduction of sources seems much more practical as a way forward, but that’s not so different from the other parties proposals and it would appear to contradict some of the claims to any radicalism in the Green movement. I also question the reliability of the publication of Green New Deal on grounds of independence and therefore whether the specific Green proposals are actually realisable in the context of current rates of growing energy demand.

Frankly, an overriding concern for the environment is exclusive to it being just one significant concern, and considering that all parties bear some heed to the factor means that the Green party has lost it’s existential reason for continuing as a political party. As a consequence we see the attempt to colonise ‘civil liberties’ and ‘social justice’ as areas of policy concern, which hardly supports the argument that you have an independent intellectual tradition. Which leads us neatly on to the coalition question…

I do apply the same critique to other parties and I know many members of the Greens complain that the Labour party is just another right-wing conservative force derived from the divested interests of the non-propertied classes and explains why so many leading spokespeople for the social(ist) movement are pure establishment and dynastic figures (including the Benns, Toynbees, Milibands, Harpeople etc) who do more to block progress than to enhance it.

You make a basic mistake in your second to last paragraph in assuming a social movement has a single, coherent critical analysis and doesn’t comprise a coalition of forces and ideas – which anyway would contradict your earlier argument of non-exclusivity – so your description of Labour as derived (exclusively?) from the labour movement is a simple error of logic and fact and a perpetuation of the lie which has held it together depite their obvious and inevitable failures in power.

But there is plenty of space in politics for people and ideas which are just plain wrong or partly wrong – obviously – if only because all the wrongs eventually cancel each other out and we consign all the bad things to memory.

Thomas, green politics has never been just about concern for the environment. It contains four ‘pillars’:

Ecological sustainability
Social Justice
Peace and Non-Violence
Participatory Democracy

Greens see that these things are interconnected. For example, climate change is a social justice issue because its negative effects impact disproportionately on the poor. etc…

The whole point of this thread is that there has been some conflict in the party recently because some folks have a different vision of internal participatory democracy than others and this conflict spilled out into the open…

Pippa,

as a liberal I agree that issues are interconnected, but because the environment is a completely interconnected system I’m arguing that it is an inherently liberal cause. I’m disagreeing that anything except the environmental issues can be a ‘Green’ party cause, unless the Green party is more than just ‘green’ – and therefore not ‘Green’.

I don’t see how social justice, peace and non-violence and participatory democracy develop from theorising about weather and climate, but I do see how all four can develop from a concept of liberty.

As Doug points out, the Greens are not a party of coherent ideas, but a social movement with different strands and principles.

Of course there are going to be disagreements between the different sides, but does it really help your cause to be dishonest about their existence and try to prevent discussing them in the open with members of public? Surely you encourage participatory democracy by listening to contributions from allcomers, not just the small self-selection of preexisting members? Surely peace is more than a state of non-violence, but a society where disagreement is fostered productively from different perspectives and used as a tool to progress debate for mutual benefit?

I can’t say that this thread has adequately explored the strengths and weaknesses of your different visions to be able to feel reassured that any decision you have or will settle on is reliable or secure, and I can only conclude that the conduct of your internal procedures has some impact on your inability to appeal more widely to the public who you say you want to participate but actually prevent them from doing so.

If your words and deeds don’t match, then how will anyone trust you? If you say one thing one minute and then say the opposite the next, then how will anybody trust what you promote? If you don’t treat people equally, how can you be sure you are being treated fairly?

If you’ve got good intentions, that’s good, but it not anywhere near good enough.

We should learn from the experiences of other Green Parties on where compromise is sensible and where parties have been undermined and lost support of activists by abandoning the Core values Pippa has highlighted. Germany and the relationship between the Grunen and the SPD in Government is the case in point, in my opinion the German Greens lost a lot of credibility by supporting policies on Employment laws which were essentially Thatcherite.

A closed group of the party inner circle send themselves on a management consultnacy course run by “Olivier Mythodrama” that are not about developing grassroots activist leadership, but corporate culture – other clients include :
Aviva
Avon
BBC
BUPA
Cabinet Office
Columbia Business School
Daimler Corporate Academy
INSEAD (Advanced Management programme)
International Atomic Energy Agency
Lafarge Corporate University
London Business School
National School of Goverment (TMP)
Nokia
Oxford Said Business School (SLP)
Rolls Royce
Sanofi Aventis
SES Astra

Now clearly these people are entitled to take a course privately if they wish, but it seems they organised this secretly through the Green party Standing Orders Committee, and one of the topics they studied was how to deal with malcontents and traitors!

Who paid for the course? Who knew about it?

Then the SOC minutes suggest that Caroline Lucas should have an assistant paid for by the party to help her campaiagn for leader. but no such facility for the other candidate?

I agree with Nick that we need to learn the lessons from those Green Parties that have taken a move to the right as the inevitable consequence of gaining political influence with the “respectable” politicians. I’d rather we were right and out in the cold than taking a few crumbs off the table whilst selling out our principles.

However, obviously I do believe it’s possible to have a sensible relationship with other parties where you can win useful reforms without selling your soul. Whether we always get that balance right or not – I don’t know.

GS I’ve seen people claim they paid for it themselves – is this not correct?

Also to clarify I don’t think you’re referring to SOC minutes but notes someone at the event took which is something quite different (hope that’s not pedantic, it’s just there’s a lot of misinformation going round and I think it’s useful for us all to ensure we don’t add to that inadvertently). I don’t think SOC discuss the funding of party positions.

My reading of the section in question was that she was to have paid assistance *once she was leader* which looked to me to be planning ahead (rightly) and a suggestion rather than a decision – as this body has no decision making powers and explicitly stated that it would make no decisions.

As to the style of the event – yes it looks horrible – but its a pluralist party and I think we need to tolerate these stylistic differences and discuss the substantive political proposals as they are presented at conference, GPEx or whatever other decision making body of the party.

Well I’m feeling very nostalgic here, as a one-time convenor and stalwart of SOC and also a member of GPEx for two years. Getting excited about this sort of thing is what the Green Party is all about, and I am amazed that I didn’t realise at the time how dysfunctional it is.

The SOC empire has obviously expanded during my absence to cover membership data and CIA lecture tours. If only I had stuck around.

Any other organisation might be able to have sensible debate and agree to disagree over whether candidates for leader can have a membership list to send their literature to members. But no, whether candidates for leader get to mail the membership is a question of core political values and if you don’t agree with me then you are an enemy of the movement.

Has nobody called in the Mediation Committee? They have black helicopters you know.