Greens on Trial

[James Richardson]

Here's a letter I have just written to the magazine in response to the 'Greens on Trial' feature. What do you think?

I enjoyed the fair hearing given to the Greens in the last issue's 'Greens on Trial' feature, in particular the recognition of the essentially socialist nature of Green policies.
 
However I was surprised by the claim that many Greens 'wouldn't like to describe themselves as left'. A recent study of Green council candidates in Scotland revealed that almost 80% considered themselved 'eco-socialist'. 'Ecologist' and 'feminist' were the second and third most popular labels.
 
My experience is that almost all Green members and voters identify as 'left', although not all are comfortable with the language of socialism. Yet the fact that so many people see the the sense in a program based on egalitarianism, environmentalism and human rights, triggers the question: what is more important - the substance of policy or the label given to it?
 
My verdict is that Greens advocate socialist ideas in a way that people can relate to, and by so doing have become the biggest left party in the UK. It is time for the court of left opinion to welome Greens to the fold, and work with them to win a fairer society. 
 
Yours
 

[Alex]

Hello James.

The Scottish Green Party is entirely separate from the English and Welsh one. I can quite believe that it identifies itself as explicitly left - the whole Scottish political spectrum is a few degrees to the left of England.

Unfortunately, I was only able to write about the English and Welsh Green Party and at their conference I did speak to a number of people who were uncomfortable with the left label. Even Caroline Lucas said to me “I’m not convinced that left / right is helpful. It’s less helpful than ever now that the Tories are to the left of Labour on some issues.”

That's not to say that the things the English and Welsh Greens stand for are any less left. Personally I think the words left and right are the most remarkable and useful political terms ever coined - they have been in constant use and relevant ever since the French Revolution. And I agree that the Greens are left, whatever they say (or don't say).

[jim jay]

Did you come to the "Is the green party anti-capitalist?" fringe? It was really excellent and very well attended.

I think anyone who went to that would know that Greens are definately on the left - although they define themselves in lots of different ways and not all of them are revolutionaries.

[Dan]

I will admit to having dismissed the Greens in the past. However, the more I learn about them the more interested and hopeful I become - and this was cemented by Red Pepper's recent coverage. I have no qualms about having supported the Greens in the last European elections; their MEPs' behaviour has been impeccable and put the Socialist Group to shame.

A quick shifty through their website, especially their election manifestos and overall Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, would indicate they are far and away the most socially and environmentally progressive bunch available to voters, in England at any rate, regardless of what some of their members may claim. Perhaps their desire not to be labelled "left" is understandable, given how the corporate media vilifies any politician deemed to be on the left. If anyone has seen the Greens' party political broadcast in the run up to the local elections, it's a great example of how they manage to express what are essentially quite radical ideas in a way that does not scare off people who wouldn't usually identify themselves as being on the left.

The overtly "socialist" left in England and Wales should either give the Green Party a chance, or start learning how they manage to be participatory and anti-capitalist (or at least anti-neoliberal) without coming off as complete head cases - and fast.

[Dugsie]

Has anybody done a study of what coalition alliances, or understandings, the Green Party have formed with other parties at local government level around the UK ?

[Joe Blakesley]

Has anybody done a study of what coalition alliances, or understandings, the Green Party have formed with other parties at local government level around the UK ?

Chris Rose would be the guy to talk to about that.  Obviously, on local authorities, we usually have to compromise and reach consensus with councillors from other parties (as we don't have a majority on any council yet, although we do hold the balance of power in places).

Actually, Plaid Cymru member, Cynog Dafis, was elected to the House of Commons on a joint Plaid/Green ticket in 1992, along with a Green Party member as his political researcher.  He wouldn't have got in with out the support of both parties, but the agreement eventually collapsed (with him becoming a Plaid MP) thanks to a perception that he was just following Plaid's manifesto, a minority of Green Party members who always wanted to scupper the deal as they saw us selling out to a mainstream party and Jonathan Porritt who engaged in backroom deals with Dafis without the consent of other Green Party members (for which I think they've both apologised to our party now).  I was only 7 at the time, so this is based on hearsay and my memory of a report I read written at a contemporary party conference.

[Joe Blakesley]

BTW, the joint campaign began on 1991-11-09 and Dafis was elected on 1992-04-09 with the description "Plaid Cymru with the support of Ceredigion Green Party" (that language being a compromise between  the local party and Wales Green Party Council who didn't want him described as a Green per se) and gained the largest swing in any seat at that general election.  The agreement was eventually dissolved on 1995-07-03.  Also, during the period of the agreement, we didn't stand local authority candidates against each other in most areas (something that started in some areas in 1988) and had joint leaflets during local elections.

While a joint Plaid/Green MP, Dafis introduced the Energy Conservation Bill & the Road Traffic Reduction Bill to Parliament.  In 1993-06, he won Green Magazine award for best newcomer to Parliament.  In 1995-02, he was declared the UK's Greenest parliamentarian.

[Dugsie]

Thanks Joe. I can see that it's a very difficult situation for a small party to be in under FPTP.

[Joe Blakesley]

Obviously, Plaid is also a small party (compared to the big 3), but their constituency follows constituency boundaries (the Welsh-speaking areas of Wales) probably more than any other party on the British mainland, whereas ours probably does so the least.

[treborc]

Big two, I'd not call the Lib Dem's a party just a collection of odd balls.

[linda omar]

Dear

I am Miss Grace Barry based in abidjan in Cote Di'voire, .Due to the situation here  in Cote Di'voire, ,those of us in the business circle are finding it very difficult to cope with the situation here,no stable government, rebel explotion at strategic places every now and then,sometimes people find it very difficult to go about their normal businesses due to fear of being victim of rebel attack,above all.the crisis in Cote Di'voire,

now has made business activities totaly parallised for quite sometime now.for intance,no good telephone facilities,no adequate security,infact,all most all the basic infrastructure were destroyed during the recent crisis in Cote Di'voire, ,ever since then .the enviroment in Cote Di'voire,  has never been conducive business wise.  Please,why i need your assistance is that i have about $6 million Dollars in the bank.I inherited the money from  my late father who was a general of coco merchant in charge of purchase and maintainance in the immediate past regime.My intention is to move the money out of  Cote Di'voire,
and invest the money in stock market or real estate in your country with the help of an honest person who will work with me as my foreign associate, i want to invest most of the money abroad to avoid lossing the money,

because it is not wise doing business in the atmosphere of fear here in  Cote Di'voire, that's why i am calling on you. If you can honestly collaborate with me ,i am ready to pay you up to 15% of the total amount if you can sincerely assist me to actualise this project soon,because the situation here in Cote Di'voire,  is very critical, the everyday rebel  explotion seems to have no end.

 Best regards.

Miss Grace Barry


My email is grace_barry1987@yahoo.co.jp

[treborc]

Oh my god of course I will help, I love scammers as much as New Labour

[Editor]

Steve Platt suggests that, despite coming second, the Greens' performance at Haltemprice and Howden was a failure:

http://plattitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/failure-for-greens.html

[treborc]

He was right, but thinking they had a chance to come first was an even bigger laugh.

[lena]

The Green Party did OK considering it was never a big area for us!

[treborc]

Considering you had to ask for a recount against a party which had no hope at all, I suppose being second can be construed as OK

[Free Radical]

I don't believe the enironmental movement is intrinsically right or left. Since the 1970s environmentalists / greens have been predominantly associated with the political left. But historically there have also been connections between evironmentalism and the fascist right. I believe the Soil Association was founded by a Mosleyite, and you can see green / environmentalist elements on the BNP Web site. I think there were also policies that we might now describe as green associated with the German Nazi party.

I certainly don't mean to offend all the decent left leaning greens, green socialists and Green Party supporters who read this site. One could of course draw similar links between fascism and socialist parties (Mussolini and Mosley come to mind) and also with anarchism and syndicalism, as elements of both were involved in the foundation of the Italian fascists. I just want to point out that while most 'Greens' are decent and left-leaning people we can not assume that the environmental movement is intrinsically of the left.

Another interesting question is the relationship to progress. In general the left has tended to embrace the idea of progress - with its roots in the Enlightenment of course - and particularly progress through science (elevated to a particularly high status in the scientific adaptations of Marxism from the 19th Century onwards). The Green movement tends to be at best ambivalent to 'progress' it seems to me - sometimes hostile.

But, having said all of this I don't doubt that interesting syntheses of socialism and environmentalism - perhaps with a rather more positive idea of progress - can be forged.

James Lovelock (something of a bete noire amongst the environmental movement I think) has said that we need more, not less technology to overcome environmental problems - I tend to think he is correct.

[rob9443]

He is bound to be correct.  The capitalist world is not going to embrace a low tech Cuban solution to the environmental crisis so alternative energy sources will have to be developed.  I believe Lovelock thinks that nuclear will have to be a big part of the solution, which seems highly dubious to me. Of course if that was the only alternative to carbon fuels he might be right but the chances are nuclear will simply be vastly expensive and divert investment away from nanotech solar and other options which would not only be green but give Africa a chance to make an economic breakthrough. 

[Free Radical]

Rob

It's an interesting point. In the long run it is hard to believe that there will be any shortage of energy, since the energy that beats down on us from the Sun (even at these Northern latitudes) is enormous. I think photosynthesis is only about 14 percent efficient (because other factors are limiting) and solar cells are heading for around 20 percent already?

But Lovelock may be right that nuclear needs to be part of the mix in the short to medium term - especially at these latitudes. The problem is that we get periods in the depth of winter under an anticyclone with no sun and no wind and low temperatures. I think Lovelock is thinking about our energy security as well as environmental issues. The thing about nuclear is that it is a precedented technology - expensive and a fossil fuel, but precedented. And actually the risks may well have been somewhat overstated.

Fusion of course is the other possible big technology solution up to 50 years down the line. It's hard to see that we won't need a mix of small and large scale generation.