Friday, 24 October 2014

Guest blog: Left Unity and the Green Party - time to talk?

 Sean Thompson is a former member of the Green Party and Green Left, who left the Green Party to join Left Unity. Ahead of LU's November Conference he has written an article about the organisation's relationship with the Green Party.

He has given me permission to publish this as a Guest Blog. I do this to encourage debate. I do not endorse everything he says but I do think he raises some important issues for both Left Unity and the Green Party.

Two resolutions to our national conference in November mention the Green Party; one calls for ‘structured collaboration… between serious forces on the left at the 2015 election, including the Green Party’, while the other states that
‘we will not call for a vote for… the middle class Greens’

Clearly, we need to get our act together and decide on the sort of relationship we want to develop with the Green Party. In my view, it is essential that we not only have a realistic understanding of the party’s politics and its support base, but that we develop a positive (but critical) working relationship with them wherever we can.

It’s only a bit more than eighteen months since our Ken, appearing on BBC’s Question Time, said that what Britain needed was a ‘UKIP of the Left’ and so kick-started the initiative that was to become Left Unity a few months later. However, since May it has started to look more and more as if it is the Green Party which is beginning to match that description. Membership of the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) is booming: it now stands at around 23,000 – a near 60% increase since the beginning of this year. Membership of the Young Greens (party members under 30 or full time students) has more than doubled over the same period and now stands at over 8,000. In the week since the TV companies announced that UKIP would be invited to take part in the election debates between the party leaders next May but that the Greens would not be, the party received an incredible 2,000 membership applications and in five days an online petition demanding its inclusion in the debates received over 185,000 signatures. Given our very modest size and limited visibility and the utter irrelevance of all the old far left sects and (except for a couple of areas) TUSC, the Green Party is increasingly being seen as the only alternative to the left of Labour.

There is no point in our trying to deny it: the Green Party is certainly now a party of the left and is even – somewhat fuzzily – anti-capitalist. Caroline Lucas has said on TV that she is proud of the party’s ‘socialist traditions’ and both she and the party’s current leader, Natalie Bennet, have publicly said that they are comfortable with being described as ‘watermelons’ (green on the outside but red on the inside; the epithet thrown at socialists in the party by right-wingers and the title of Green Left’s conference bulletin). There is little in its formal list of policies that any of us would take violent exception to; the party is opposed to Trident and NATO, and in favour of the renationalisation of the railways and public ownership of buses, water, gas and electricity. It is opposed to the privatisation of the NHS and its education policy is all but identical with the NUT’s. It is opposed to current anti-trade union laws and the proposed TTIP and supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. Oh, and in addition to publicly supporting the People’s Assembly Against Austerity, the party supports CAMRA’s Beer Drinkers and Pub Goers Charter! In other words, most of the time we agree with each other on most things.

However, its politics are syncretic and impressionistic, having developed out of and still marked to some degree by, a narrow and moralistic environmentalism. The nearest thing it has to a clear statement of political position is its ‘Philosophical Basis’ document, 3,000 mind numbing words of well meaning flannel. As a result, the party’s politics are to a large degree built on sentiment rather than rigorous analysis. This is compounded by the fact the the party has a very weak tradition of organised internal debate (apart from its six monthly conferences) and no tradition at all of political education.

The political strategy of the Green Party is based on the unspoken assumption that politics is virtually entirely about fighting elections and political success is entirely about winning them. Thus the whole structure of the party, such as it is, is organised as a rough approximation of an election machine which apes the three major parties. In those areas where the party is organised enough, its activities are for the most part confined to fighting elections and in between, preparing for the next one by distributing newsletters/leaflets and canvassing. Its presence on demonstrations and in broad labour movement campaigns is usually limited to members of Green Left, the Green Party Trade Union Group (GPTU) and increasingly the Young Greens.

The GPEW is no longer just an environmental one trick pony – it is a left-social democratic party and implicitly (and to a modestly increasing degree, explicitly) anti-capitalist. The trouble is, it has no real analysis of capitalism, the state, or who, where or what are the agencies for change. As a result, it has no overall strategy for how to get from where we are to where we want to be beyond getting an ever increasing number of people to vote the goodies into office rather than the baddies. The problem with this sort of voluntaristic radicalism, based on a personal moral imperative and unreinforced by much in the way of analysis or understanding of class politics, is that when push comes to shove, no matter how principled and progressive you are personally, you do tend to get shoved – as they did (and continue to do) when they ‘took power’ as a minority administration in Brighton.

Nonetheless, the more or less conscious move to the left of much of the party’s membership over the past few years, away from the the narrow environmentalist niche politics that were, and to some degree still are, its comfort zone, in combination with the recruitment of large numbers a younger generation attracted by its increasing emphasis on egalitarianism and social justice, has been extremely positive. While it is is true that the average Left Unity member is to the left of the average Green Party member, the Greens are clearly significantly to the left of Labour. They are, whether they realise it or not (and many of them do, in a muddled sort of way) – or whether we like it or not – part of the broad and inchoate movement that has to be brought together to be the basis of a new mass party of the left that can earn the active support and involvement of millions of working people.

Clearly, the Greens are not that party – actually it has not even occurred to much of the older membership that that should even be an ambition. The party’s membership is overwhelmingly middle class (although I suspect not that much more so than ours). By and large, the areas in which it has done well – Brighton, Norwich, Bristol, Lancaster and pockets of some of the major cities – have a larger than average percentage of young, leftish, well educated middle class inhabitants (eighteen months ago, an internal survey found that 38% of the Green membership had a postgraduate degree). However, the Greens have started to pick up a modest increase in support in a few working class areas, particularly in the West Midlands.

The problem is that their niche market – the progressive middle class vote – is highly contested and unstable. At the last General Election a good slice of the Greens’ ‘natural’ supporters went to the Lib Dems. Since then, of course, the Lib Dem vote has collapsed and in the elections in May 2014, many of those who chose it in 2010 because of New Labour’s shameful record in government returned to Labour, which has exercised a hegemony over progressive middle class politics for the best part of a century. What will happen next May is anyone’s guess. At the moment the Green Party is neck and neck with the Lib Dems, with the latest Ashcroft poll showing them at 8% to the Lib Dems’ 7%. Caroline Lucas will, with any luck, retain her seat in Brighton (although the party will be hammered in the council election there) but its chances in its other target seats are rather slimmer than it claims. Their electoral support is very evenly spread so they are likely to pick up a very respectable number of votes which are unlikely to translate into many, if any, additional seats.

When I was in the Green Party I repeatedly pointed out to my comrades in Green Left that the party, while being many times larger than all the far left sects put together, was just as much a sect as any of them. The Green Party may be an unusual sect, in that it is left reformist and fairly democratic and tolerant, but it is a sect nonetheless. Like other sects it is obsessed with the Full and Correct Programme (in this case its Policies for a Sustainable Society rather than the Transitional Programme of 1938 or the British Road to Socialism) which, if presented to the unenlightened masses for long enough, will lead them to recognise their previous shortsightedness. Like other sects it tends to view actual concrete struggles through the distorting prism of its own programmatic priorities – including many programmatic points which are good in themselves of course.

To its credit, it doesn’t share with most far left sects an obsession with the Leninist conception of the party (although, arguably, neither did Lenin) but on the other hand it doesn’t have a class analysis (or much of any kind of analysis) of society and the state. And it doesn’t have any of the other various laughable programmatic tics and obsessions of the ‘old left’ grouplets – but then it doesn’t need them as it has plenty of its own.

While it is therefore unlikely that the Green Party, left to its own devices, will break out of its political niche, it has demonstrated that it has considerable potential to grow within it. It is at least three times as large as all the groups on the radical left (including Left Unity) put together, if not larger. Its youth wing (which will be discussing a proposal to formally declare itself socialist at its next conference) is growing at a rate of knots and is the biggest political grouping on an increasing number of campuses. And thanks to the efforts of Green Left (which now has four members on the party’s national executive, including Trade Union Liaison Officer) and GPTU, it is beginning to have some very modest influence in a number of unions at national level.

It would be a grave mistake to just write off the Greens as ‘middle class’ or, regardless of their policies and their involvement in progressive campaigns, tacit supporters of the status quo. Many people, particularly younger people, are increasingly seeing them as the only viable organisation to the left of Labour – and in many parts of the country they are. In Australia, the Green Party has effectively filled the space to the left of the right wing Labor Party by default, due to the irrelevance (and tiny size) of all the orthodox groupings of the radical left. That was the situation, too, in Germany for many years – and even now Die Grünen, compromised and discredited though it is, still constitutes a major block to the development of our sister party Die Linke. Given that we are less than a tenth of the Greens’ size it would be ludicrous for us to dismiss them as irrelevant.

The vast majority of Greens see themselves as left wing and a large proportion are happy to describe themselves as anti-capitalist, including Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett. Many consider themselves socialists, and the fact that many more don’t really know whether they are or not is as much a condemnation of the sectarianism of the far left groups as it is of the poverty of political theory in the Green Party.

I believe that building a mass party to the left of Labour has to involve the Green Party, or at least a large part of its membership, in some way. Rather than reject or ignore them I think that we should attempt to engage with them in practical ways and develop a relationship as critical friends. In May, the Green Party will be standing in at least 300 seats and in the majority of them are likely to be fielding the only left of Labour candidates. No doubt some comrades might be able to construct some sort of argument for not supporting them in those contests, but it would be an example of the sort of bone headed sectarianism that has been so typical of the British Left over the past few decades and which has been in large measure responsible for us being so discredited and marginalised now.

If, in the future, we want them not to put up candidates against us in some areas, or wish to persuade them not to stand against the handful of decent Labour MPs (or Plaid in Wales) – or not to stand in the two or three places where TUSC has a chance of a more than derisory vote – then we need to take the initiative in backing them as we did in the North West in the Euro elections, at least in constituencies where there is no other left candidate. There is no chance of us negotiating a national agreement with the Greens in time for the May elections, but there is time for us to start to talk to them at local level and begin to discuss how best to co-operate in practical ways.


  1. Replies
    1. Really?

      Sean bemoans The Green Party for not being as 'left' as he may have wished, yet towards the end wishes to persuade the Party not to stand against Labour, who as we all know are a right wing party. Please reference the political compass UK.

      Which makes it even more the surprising given Sean called last year called for people to leave The Green Party as it was 'heading right'. Yet, now asks for Greens to stand down against a right wing party (Labour).

      The results from the polls indicate that Greens derive support from people across the range of classes defined by the pollsters (AB C1 C2 DE). The polls also show that The Greens are taking support from people who have previously voted Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives. Sounds like Left Unity didn't get the traction that it had hoped and Sean will visit in no time.

    2. He doesn't try to persuade us not to stand against right wing neo-labour, but says there's a handful of decent labour mps who it might be tactically fortuitous not to stand against. And I think he's right that there are a handful of decent left wing mps hanging on in the labour party (who have been completely marginalised within it) who are more left wing than a lot of people in our party. I think he makes a very good analysis over all

    3. Your ignoring quiet an important qualification he makes for supporting 'the handful of decent labour mps' and generalising to suggest he means all of right wing neo-labour, which seems a dishonest approach to discusson and debate. It's true that there is a handful (and it really is just a small handful) of decent labour mps who are more left wing than a lot of our members (however, they've been completely marginalised within the labour party).

    4. This 'handful of decent Labour MPs' - How likely are they to vote with their conscience when they are in power? The Labour Party still operates a 'whip' system so whomever these people are mere stooges. In fact, these areas where these Labour MPs you talk of stand sounds like extremely important areas to stand a Green as people who may have voted for this Labour MP can then vote for a party with core values. Even if the Labour MP lost, it would enable a base vote to build upon for a Green MP in 2020.

    5. Really? You think John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn don't vote with their consciences when Labour are in power? Take a look back through Hansard. As someone who left Labour and now usually votes Green I would still vote for McDonnell, Corbyn and a handful of others if I had the opportunity. You can argue this its not the right tactic for Greens to stand down but you can't deny they have a proven principled voting record.

    6. Yes, I can't deny John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn have voting records that align strongly with Green Values and principles, however they still represent Labour. With Scottish Labour about to be decimated in a similar manner to the Lib Dems in England, these two people could make the difference as to who gets into government.

      I appreciate that Jeremy Corbyn is up against Caroline Russell which may form part of a motivation to form a deal. However, if Caroline got in we know that she would completely espouse Green Values and you wouldn't be missing Jeremy as you'd get a principled stance of an individual within a party that supports such as principled stance.

      If you make the argument to me that a consequence of votes for Caroline might be that a Tory or a UKIP or an 'unprincipled' person might get in then so be it. We can't have this age old, Vote X to stop Y, vote Y to stop X. Sometimes people have to vote FOR something as opposed to against everyone else. Islington may have 5 years of someone unprincipled, but in 2020 Caroline, or whomever would be selected for the Green Party in Islington would have a larger share of the vote in a marginal seat to build upon and go for the win.

      Moreover this unprincipled person, if they had a voting record of someone like Bob Blackman in Harrow, would make it even more likely for a Green win!

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. It's worth asking why "the Green Party ... is at least three times as large as all the groups on the radical left ... put together." One reason is that each 'radical left' group has invested heavily in a class-based theoretical analysis leading to a political programme. In practice this produces the same kind of rigidity that afflicts religious sects - but without the emotional payoff! It's why the Marxist sects are permanently stuck in a corner of the political landscape.

    By contrast we Greens aim to base our policies on our values and on evidence. We draw inspiration from past Green thinkers but recognise no holy texts. We are more inspired by science than by churches and sects. That makes our policies more eclectic but also more likely to work. That is, and ought to be, important to us.

    But I'm missing one point for there is one issue on which we have a distinctive analysis. We recognise that the world's resources are finite and already under stress. We cannot and HAVE NO RIGHT TO use more than we do. Indeed, the appalling decline in wildlife revealed last week by the WWF shows that we already use far too much. Some socialists also know this. Those that care would do more good if they moved to the Green Party.