Does the Green Party need a leader?

[Editor]

Does the Green Party need a leader?

The Green Party is currently balloting its members on whether to appoint a leader. Rupert Read and Shahrar Ali debate the pros and cons on the Red Pepper website.

Add your views here.

There is nothing left about having no leader. By Rupert Read
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article702.html

Leadership in the plural. By Shahrar Ali
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article703.html

[GreenerWorld]

As someone in favour of the motion, I think this is absolutely the correct decision for the party to take. As such, Rupert and I are in a minority within Green Left, but Sian Berry and the party chairman, Richard Mallender, also in GL are both supporting the motion, along with many others.

"Principal Speaker" requires semantic gymnastics when it is explained on the doorstep. I'd much prefer to say, Caroline Lucas is our leader, or Jean Lambert / Adrian Ramsay are our co-leaders, then explain the positives about our genuine collective leadership structure (the Executive), where the "leaders" have two votes out of thirteen.

"Principal Speaker" is also disempowering for those who speak English as a second language. Try translating "Female Principal Speaker" into Gujurati or Polish, and see how much of the intended meaning comes across. The Green Party needs to rid itself of well-intentioned but elitist middle class structures and labels, and make sure it effectively communicates with all of the communities within Britain today.

[atlee]

I'm a green and I'm on the left, although not a member of GreenLeft. I think it's high time the green party started using terminology that didn't sound so middle class. People on the left often talk about the missing class ( and working class at that) component in green party approach -  this issue is a prime example.

I read both the articles and the one against having leaders is a perfect example of someone not getting this vital point about class and communication. We're talking about  change of language here, not granting Blair-like powers, and if the green are ever going to start appealing to a wider audience they need to show that making a difference is more important to them than being different. I'm not going so far as to say never trust a hippy but you know what I mean!

[123456789]

This might surprise some people (given my old-school, authoritarian leftism), but I actually support the idea of having separate male and female speakers/leaders, and I'm disappointed that no one really addresses the Greens' bravery in adopting this structure.

My support for the idea is based on the feminist critique of the history of philosophy, politics, law and literature, in which the 'subject-position' is always implicitly assumed to be male. For this reason, we need an authentic female subject-position not based on some patronising notion of women as gentle 'lifegivers', nor on the idea that what women need to do is become 'more like men'. The possibility of falling into either of these erroneous stances awaits any female political leader (just as it awaits all women) hence, perhaps, the need for precisely such a leader.

[Matt Hodgkinson]

Red herring 1: 'Principal Speaker' is alienating.
If the terminology of 'Principal Speaker' is the real problem then let's change the name, not the role. Why can't we just call them 'Spokesmen', or for those worried that this is not a gender neutral term, 'Co-speakers'? Please stop arguing for a leader on the basis that the term 'Principal Speaker' is a bad one. I agree, but I don't think that we have to adopt a leader to change the name!


Red herring 2: We need accountability, and a leader will give us that.
If the Green Party at the highest level did something appalling, then those responsible for that decision, action or pronouncement should resign, be it the Principal Speakers, the Chair, or the members of the Executive. Having a leader won't change that. Indeed, our 'leader' wouldn't have the executive power that normally comes with being a leader, they would still be one of many. So the adoption of a leader wouldn't qualitatively change our party decision-making structure.

Besides, being accountable means avoiding or fixing mistakes, not just resigning. Ian Blair wouldn't  really be held accountable for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes even if he did resign - he and the Met need to ensure that it could never happen again. That's accountability. And only blaming Ian Blair for the disaster of Jean Charles' death misses the fact that the individual officers need to be held to account for their own actions and decisions. Having a 'leader' should not absolve others of responsibility or accountability.

Greg Dyke was forced out from the BBC when he didn't even have direct editorial control over the Today programme, and when what Andrew Gilligan accused the government of (sexing up their reports on Iraq's alleged WMDs) was basically true. He was the leader; his head had to roll. Yes, that sounds like a great set up.


Red herring 3: Other parties have leaders and parliamentary representation, and so if we had a leader, we'd have parliamentary representation too.
As I wrote in my letter in the Guardian, this argument is full of holes. The Scottish and Irish parties have been lucky enough to benefit from Proportional Representation. Their vote is not significantly higher than the GPEW, so it doesn't seem that having a leader has boosted them to great heights in the polls. The nail in the coffin for this argument is the Canadian party - they've got a leader, they are even the third party in the polls as of last week - but they don't have any MPs, because Canada inherited first-past-the-post from the UK.


Red herring 4: Not having a leader leads to chaos: "Anti-leadership is at best a misguided anarchist ideal: NOT a left or green ideal."
Anarchy doesn't mean chaos or a lack of organisation, that's too broad a brush. Look beyond the black bloc and lifestyle anarchism. While anarchy in the popular mindset may mean acting like a child, sponging, rioting and squats, in reality anarchy means devolved decision-making structures; it shouldn't be a dirty word, especially to left-liberals, although it's not a term I'd expect the general public to engage with. Anarchy doesn't mean that people can't show leadership, it just means that they can't dictate to others. Look up the Political Compass, and you'll see that the Green Party sits well down in the left-liberal quadrant, along with Gandhi. Gandhi was an anarchist.


Red herring 5: Having a leader is truly the sign of a radical left party: "Socialist and communist parties have long known that anti-leadership is not in the slightest radical or left-wing".
Shall we follow the lead of communists and adopt democratic centralism? After all, it has never done the left any harm... oh wait, did someone mention the SWP? (or, whisper it, Stalin).


Red herring 6: "Anti-leader-ness is in the end as quite literally absurd as ‘the American dream’... This is the same false fantasy that drives advertising implying that we can all have the best car, the best body ... Anti-leadership advocates have bought into a right-wing [liberal, consumerist] fantasy".
Devolved decision-making is not selfish or individualistic! The 'American Dream' is absurd because it is just that, a dream, while the system fails entirely to empower the individual. Give people a real say, real power, and see what they do with it. Restricting decision-making power to an elected elite is exactly is what is wrong with representative democracy, it leads people to cynicism, powerlessness and despair, and they take solace in consumerism. I can hardly believe that Rupert actually used that argument.


Red herring 7: Having a leader will improve our party organisational structure: "After 25 years of leaderless structures, we have barely grown. Our offices have very few staff, and many things don't happen because nobody is responsible. Those things include fundraising, recruitment and retention of members. Leadership will mean that somebody is accountable and will understand that these things are necessary and need to happen".
I can't see how changing the name of our Principal Speakers to leader and deputy leader, giving them a vote on the Executive and electing them biennially instead of annually is going to solve any organisational issues in the party. If we want to do that, what about paying our elected officers and spokesmen so they can do their roles professionally and full time? The leader proposal doesn't tackle this issue at all.


Red herring 8: "It is utter nonsense to pretend that anyone whose door we knock on could, with enough assistance, become the next Caroline Lucas".
This is quite a straw man! Nobody is saying that every member of the party, let alone every member of the public, has leadership potential. But we all have a right to be involved in decisions and not be dictated to. Leadership and dictation are not the same thing. We already have leadership in our party without having or needing a leader.

[atlee]

fishy nonsense 1) if you're going to use a word that people understand, why NOT  just use leader - what is this bizarre fear of a word? You want to listen to some Lenny Bruce sometime

fishy nonsense 2) if you're in the green party, and i am, you'll know that having 40 people spread over three committees  in charge means that people can hide from being shown to have taken bad decisons. that's why accountability is important

fishy nonsense 3) FACT ALERT - having clearly idenitifiable figureheads does lead to greater voting - well known studies on british politics have demonstrated this from the well known John Curtice at strathclyde uni to  the extensive  British election Study carried out at Essex Uni

fishy nonsesne 4) is not having leaders a true left position?  - no it isn't. Be an anarchist if you want mate ,  more power to your elbow, just don't do it in an electoral organisation.

square pegs round holes

If i want to look after horses I'll work in stables if i want to be a mechanic i'll work in a garage -  not recognising this means cars with saddles and horses with windscreen wipers -  daft.

fishy nonsense 5) well not having leaders has not done the green party very well either has it - the planet is at stake - have some courage and try something new - it's not always about middle class principles its about achieving change in th world around you

fishy nonsense 6) what are you talking about - 'restricting decision making?' we're talking about communicating outside of trendy islington cafes ( no disrespect to the good  citizens of that place of course, lovely coffee by the way)

fishy nonsense 7)  'paying'  - are you having a laugh? - how do you think you get money without corporate sponsorship then? you get new members - how does that happen you ask? by people being aware of who you are and what you're about - how do they do that if it doesn't happen in their immediate location you ask?- they hear about in the news  and on the telly -

hello, 21st century calling....

fishy nonsesne bloody hell up to eight points and we're still not finished - i won't be voting for you as communications officer....

[ingo]

Far from coming up with a new idea, the leadership possee has now for 17 years frustrated the Green Party's progress, mostly at inconvenient times, ie. election.
If this leadership issue, copying the Bilderberg blueprint so loved in the west as it is subverting democracy towards their vested interests, would have really been so important to the media and the public, how was it possible that all other parties leadership debates mattered at their annual Conference, but the Green Party could not even get the debate about it into the media? Why should they show an interest once we have a leader, this is wishfull thinking, clutching at straws.

We are subverting the basic idea behind a green society which is the decentralisation of power, we want many local accountable leaders, not one who is easily subverted by the trappings of power.
Our new members, despite their polemic, will destroy the basic ideas behind the Green Party, what makes it special and uncontrollable by vested interests. The reason why we are so at odds with the media, who is doing its utmost to comply with the neocons wishes, is that we do not conform to their need for short mallable sentences, that we do not have one point of contact who tells them all, to then twist it.
They know that they cannot control the Green party and hence shun us.
Look at what hope and aspirations people set in Brown? and how they have been disappointed, already, see who he is aligning himself with, sameasiteverwasGordon.
The Green Party cannot take the small out of 'small is beautifull', we have still much to learn and our future lies in pragmatic coalition politics, not aping mistakes as we see them. We are already compromised by having to support centralisers at the next general election and I cannot see activists doing much for it. I am not having any Green Party elected that wants to set us on to a road to subdefuge and compromise, the world needs change, not sticky plasters or more fine green talk.
Greens have a lot to do with regards to their policies on education, senior citizens, monetary policy, dare I go on, many of their ideas need testing to models, far more important than leaders.
Recognition, so loved by all of us, will come locally, as much as it will come nationally, it will come through open dialougue with the public and through our policies, not through the media and a new shiny silk suit.
I very much hope that the one party that ever ment anything to me personally, will not be subverted, many of us will leave, its that important, not the young, who don't know much about the machinations of past political primadonnas and NGO wannabe's, but the old activists, who set up this party and nurtured it through its years of arduous rise. I urge everyone to vote against the motion for leaders, they are not us. Ingo

[gremista]

I just want to refer to a few things in atlee's posts.

We're led by an executive of around a dozen members. Not sure where you got the 3 committees and 40 members from?

Surely it would cause some confusion to call somebody a leader if they're simply one part of that Executive?

As far as reaching out to the working classes go, the Green Party have had local councillors elected on some big majorities in predominantly working class areas. We've not done that not through promoting some individual, we've done that through hard work as a team on a person-to-person level by proving to people that we are different, we can be trusted and we do care. Greens stand for something different and that can't be conveyed by a single face on the TV, whatever their title is. If we don't stand for something different we either cease to be Green or cease to be relevant.

[Rupert Read]

Gremista says that the way we get elected in working-class areas is by hard work. That is true. I am a Councillor representing such a ward, and it has been hard work.
Gremista says that the way we get elected in working-class areas is not by promoting an individual or individuals. That is false. You are making it much harder for the Green Party to get elected locally if you do not promote the individual who is to be elected. Zoom up to the constituency level, and the point is doubly so: Lewisham Green Party would never have got anywhere without the leadership of Darren Johnson, and Norwich Green Party would never have got anywhere without the leadership of Adrian Ramsay. These individuals are now the Leaders of substantial Green groups on their local Councils, and target Parliamentary candidates.
Zoom up to the national level, and the point obviously remains correct: The media, who mostly mediate our contact with the voting public, will not promote or interact seriously with a rotating bunch of interchangeable mouthpieces.
Individuals identify with individuals. We hobble ourselves, if we refuse to identify one of our number as our Leader.

[rob9443]

What's the problem with a leader?  So long as the internal party structure remains democratic so the leadership can't get away with selling out and moving to the right the way Labour did I don't see what's wrong with a leader in principle.

Unfortunately personalities matter.

[ingo]

What's the problem with a leader?  So long as the internal party structure remains democratic so the leadership can't get away with selling out and moving to the right the way Labour did I don't see what's wrong with a leader in principle.

Unfortunately personalities matter.

`
Rob, this is exactly my point. I remeber times when David Icke and Sarah Parkin, at the beginning of this leadership poison, went around saying 'they are the acceptable face of the Green Party' allready presuming a leadership role and acting as leaders, without being mandated by the membership, we had our jobs worth already, this is just hankering for some more by new members egged on by the same protagonists who then went round with hundreds of proxy votes in their handbags, today they are trying to destroy the core party values. I am sure this development has petra kelly churning in her grave, she would have been up in arms at such proposals, as for the Green party celebrating Schumachers policies, forget it, this move will turn it into a grey party, as compliable as all the others are. Ah well, everything has a price.
Lets look at the leadership in the German Green Party who was first to ignore the Green Parties fundamental decentralisation policy, were are they now?
In the middle of the main stream. They had to support the bombing of Kosovo, against the wishes of their party leader, because Joska Fisher, an ex taxi driver and gun runner for Baader meinhof, was not strong enough, a fall guy. He became foreign minister and was axed. Today the Greens, after being along the leadership lane, are nowhere, still a marginal party.
All our local achievements, rumoured to be down to single peoples efforts, have been achieved with much work from ordinary members and it will be these members who eventually get local leaders elected, despite the machinations and dreams of sole leaders in some minds. Some of us have worked away during the nineties, with very little publicity, keeping the Green party alive were there was no coordinated approach, used and spat out without a thank you, now this.

Leaders, just like the noLabour party at present, tend to ditch their longterm allegiances and advisors, see Des Brown, to suddenly behold the opposite view to the one they got elected on.Two jags exchanged with two jobs worth, is that what these Greens want to do?

I ask this question again' why is it that the media has not taken up this leadership debate going on in the Green Party, only now cottoning on to the last words on both sides, why did they not report on our Confertence debate and were all over us, if they so yearn for the Greens to have a mallable leader?
The expectations from central leaders are too remote from local efforts, a centralising move now will mean a split of the party, as it has happened in Germany, not one of our Greens has learned the lessons.

The Green Party will be seen as split for years, further, at the first leadership election, there will be over a hundered candidates, jostling, bad blood, etc. , all that will be reported in the media, not our policies, the most socially responsible ideas ever, sustainable policies which go above the bull s..., those who have been korting the media for their own personal reasons will be responsible for the greying of the Greens.

[Matt Hodgkinson]

"The Green Party will be seen as split for years".
Ingo, let's not exaggerate. The debate over whether to have a leader is a healthy political discussion, and there is no reason at all for us to suffer from infighting or even a split because of it. I do not want us to adopt a leader, but I will certainly not be bitter or leave the party if there is a two-thirds majority in favour of the leader motion.

[ingo]

"The Green Party will be seen as split for years".
Ingo, let's not exaggerate. The debate over whether to have a leader is a healthy political discussion, and there is no reason at all for us to suffer from infighting or even a split because of it. I do not want us to adopt a leader, but I will certainly not be bitter or leave the party if there is a two-thirds majority in favour of the leader motion.

You see this is were we are different Matt, its our clause 4 moment allright and decentralisation of power does never mean centralised leaders, I cannot accomodate such a step backward. I have been a member of the Green Party since its existed, first in germany, then here, I have seen the german Greens being breakfast to the SPD and now we copy them, such a move is like a stab in the heart.
A healthy political discussion you call this, more like a constant kick in the groin lasting 17 years, thats how many years our collective efforts have been frustrated and undermined.
lets see what the membership makes of it, far from calling it a close vote, I hope that those who joined the Green Party since 2000, have a clear understanding what principles they've signed up to.
green policies are not just for the here and now, but guarantees that others in future have the same. Still no answer to my question, those who want to lead us and are collectively opposed to being led by a EU Green Party leader, are silent.

Whats exagerated is, the believe in leadership as the panacea to our perceived problems, so why pretend that all is well within the Green Party, it never was.
Those Bilderberg members of us, never much active in the Party, unless its about leadership, but out to suit the ruling classes, first, they cannot possibly understand what the working classes are going through or what it encorporates to be of working stock, they epitamise why our membership has persisted to be largely homogenously caucasian during our 34 year history.

[Rupert Read]

The ongoing debate is great. I am going to make a different kind of contribution to it now, by returning to answer some of the points in Shahrar's original piece, replying to me, that I don't feel have yet been fully answered, not even by Newbie's superb post.

Dear Shahrar;
   Thanks for your thoughtful letter, and I think we can take a certain amount of shared pleasure from the strong debate that has opened up since.
   Obviously, there is much that we have in common. But I think we are still going to disagree about this one…
 You doubt my claim that having a Leader and Deputy or Co-Leaders would enhance accountability. Perhaps then you would like to address the case of the Scots Green Party? See e.g. my letter in the _Guardian_ on this topic: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,2210036,00.html . Or see Mark Ballard’s and Patrick Harvie MSP’s comments, at http://www.greenyes.org/quotes.html . If the Scottish experience has been very clearly that formally-recognised Leadership enhances accountability, why should we doubt that it will in England and Wales too?
 You say that “conventional politics has shown itself to be unfit for purpose”. A well-wrought phrase. But I haven’t noticed the electorate queueing up to endorse a Party presenting itself deliberately as unconventionally as it can, ‘led’ according to a quasi-anarchist model, just yet… The electorate, our potential voters, want us to get into make power and make changes. They don’t want us to have middle-class-sounding titles nor to seem to shy away from power as if from something dirty… They want us to relocalise our economy and polity, to renationalise the railways, to defend the NHS and to transform it into a National Wellness Service, to bring about an enormous investment in renewables, to stand firm against wars of aggression even while those wars are being launched and fought… they want us above all to lead the struggle against dangerous climate change (on this, see my blog, ‘Rupert’s read’: http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2007/11/green-leadership-last-thoughts.html ). When we say that we will not trust ourselves and our leading figures enough to elect a Leader from among our own, we unavoidably give the impression that we are uncomfortable in taking the risk of assuming that Leadership role.
 Isn’t it striking that the Green Party has flourished in those places where an individual has stepped up to the plate and led it, organisationally and in the media and as a figurehead (e.g. Darren Johnson in Lewisham, Adrian Ramsay in Norwich, now both Leaders of large Green Party Council Groups)? Isn’t it striking that the clear majority of the most electorally-serious Green activists (e.g. over 75% of our Party’s Principal Authority Councillors, all three of our target Parliamentary candidates, both our MEPs) are voting Yes?
 Shahrar, the choice facing us honestly is: to whistle for longer in the wilderness -- or to give ourselves a shot at bringing the green-left to power … before civilisation goes belly up… I do hope that we'll make the right choice this week!
Yours ever, Rupert.

[jamesy]

Matt Hodgkinson wants the Green Party to stay leaderless, and advocates a 'No' vote in the Party's current referendum on this issue. His letter to the Guardian newspaper (16th Nov) rightly talks about the Green Party potentially getting MPs elected in our three target seats, of Brighton, Norwich and Lewisham. But, checking the 'Yes' Campaign's website, I couldn't help noticing that all three of those potential-MPs -- our Party's Parliamentary candidates in those three seats -- are advocating a 'Yes' vote... Presumably these candidates, unlike Mr. Hodgkinson, believe that the Green Party electing a Leader will play an important role in helping Greens get elected to Parliament... Which, to me, does indeed seem simply to be common sense!

James Youd

[Shahrar]

Dear Rupert,

Round Two 

1. Calling somebody accountable does not make them so. Or, as I said earlier, it risks being an empty concept (unlike when you and I exchange letters). It's quite common for a leader to claim, "I take full responsibility for the decision," whilst simply ignoring advice and continuing to make bad decisions. Nor does resignation necessarily help, and is quite consistent with fleeing from one's responsibilities. By the time electors are obliged to find a different leader, say, more harm may have been done in a dysfunctional political system (the very system many voters find disempowering).

2. Trust does not operate in a vacuum. One leader's "Trust me, I'm Tony," is this Green's, "No thanks, I'm not that gullible." Greens aren't different for the sake of it, but we do realise that certain sorts of political hierarchy are ill-conducive to good decision-making. David Owen has just written an excellent book on how hubristic failure owes more to the nature of the office than what the leader originally brought to it. Are Greens especially immune to the egotism and conceit we see befall single political leaders?

Our philosophical basis says: "We emphasise democratic participation and accountability by ensuring that decisions are taken at the closest practical level to those affected by them." The guiding idea is that the collective is generally a better judge of their interest than somebody who purports to act on their behalf without meaningful input. Even on your terms, Rupert, surely it shows greater faith in our own abilities to entrust more of us, not fewer of us, with decision-making responsibility?

3. Calling somebody a Leader, even electing them as one, does not make them have leadership qualities. I do agree with you, Rupert, that where we have made gains, leadership has flourished. But I challenge your assumption that such leadership is confined to a single individual. To the contrary, those gains were made possible by the constitution which was then, and still is, current; the one which many of us seek to reaffirm in this referendum of ours. Empowerment brings self-sufficiency in its wake, irrespective of whether those other leaders get called as much, credited or self-identify as such.

I, like you Rupert, am impatient for political transformation, but I realise that meaningful change requires having the courage to resist appeal to be more like the other parties. This part of our internal structure is one of our greatest assets, let's not abandon it. Trust me, my name is not Tony.

We need to stick to our guns now more than ever.

Yours, Shahrar Ali

PS. Unfortunately, you neglect to mention, the Greens lost seats in Scotland this year (down from 7 MSPs to 2) and we should not pretend that a leader has all the answers.

[GreenerWorld]

they epitamise why our membership has persisted to be largely homogenously caucasian during our 34 year history.

Perhaps we would have been better able to communicate to Asian voters throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s if the concepts behind "Principal Speaker" were not so obstructive. Try translating Female Principal Speaker into Urdu, Punjabi or Gujurati. Or try Mandarin. Our middle class elitist language has been a barrier to our progress in non-white communities.

We will know the result on Friday and Saturday, and whatever concerns you have about the use of the word "leader" Ingo, I'd point out that 2 co-leaders or 1 leader/1 deputy will have 1 vote each on the Executive. That will be 2 votes out of 13. I trust Green Party members to elect good people to all of the positions on the Exec, and I will respect the result of this referendum because I am a member of a democratic party.

[Matt Hodgkinson]

James, you make two errors in your argument.

First, you appeal to authority. I very much want to see our parliamentary candidates elected, but just because they support a leader, that doesn't make it necessarily right to have one. Look at the arguments and facts for or against why we should have a leader, not who says we should have one. Think for yourself, rather than waiting to be lead.

Secondly, you declare a leader to be "common sense". Common sense can mean all things to all people. To many, it would be common sense to expel immigrants from the UK, withdraw from the EU and slash petrol tax. Again, it is best to stick to the facts of the argument.

[ingo]

James, you make two errors in your argument.

First, you appeal to authority. I very much want to see our parliamentary candidates elected, but just because they support a leader, that doesn't make it necessarily right to have one. Look at the arguments and facts for or against why we should have a leader, not who says we should have one. Think for yourself, rather than waiting to be lead.

Secondly, you declare a leader to be "common sense". Common sense can mean all things to all people. To many, it would be common sense to expel immigrants from the UK, withdraw from the EU and slash petrol tax. Again, it is best to stick to the facts of the argument.

I agree with you on this point Matt, we have seen leaders 'believeing that they were doing the right thing', even citing their religous belief as a justification of murder and carnage, delivered with a smile.
Having local leaders is the appropritae Green philosophical base, much safer and much more accountable. As much as I would like to see the first Green MP in Westminster, I do not believe that we need to accomodate those who advocate central powerbrokers, who put comments into their mouth as advocated by editors, newspaper owners and media magnates.
The sooner we enable our own media conduits and approach them as a go between, rather than a biased broad casting system that is symbiotically linked to the flavour of the day.
Pulpable and mallable leaders, steered via media conditioning and last chance offers by a scretive elite is the last thing we want to offer the electorate. ingo

[GreenerWorld]

Darren Johnson, on behalf of the Green Yes campaign, in advance of the referendum result, said:

“Turnout has been very high by Green Party standards, perhaps well over 40%, which shows the interest our members have had in the future direction of the Party.

Win or lose, we will respect the verdict of the members.

We thank the supporters of the No Campaign for their help in organising and attending meetings and for providing a stimulating debate.”