Greens condemn May's 'deep dishonesty' and are ready to pose a real alternative to the politics of the past

The Green Party has responded to Theresa May's announcement of an early General Election with Caroline Lucas MP promising a 'bold, positive vision for a different kind of Britain' while co-leader Jonathan Bartley said that the Green Party would give people a 'real alternative to the politics of the past'.

Caroline Lucas said:

Britain is at a crossroads – and today’s announcement means that people are rightly given a say over the direction this country is going to take. Only the Green Party offers a bold, positive vision for a different kind of Britain. At this election we will stand for an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few; a Britain that’s open to the world and the protection of our precious environment. We will stand up to the politics of hatred and division that is scarring our communities and give people across the country a chance to vote for a better Britain.

Jonathan Bartley said:

Theresa May’s announcement today reveals a deep dishonesty at the heart of Government. Despite numerous denials of a plan for an early General Election she has u-turned. The Green Party is ready for this seismic moment in our country’s future. We will be standing candidates in every corner of this country and giving people a real alternative to the politics of the past.

Tulip Siddiq may leave Shadow Front Bench over Article 50 vote

Tulip Siddiq, MP for  Hampstead and Kilburn, which covers three Brent wards, in a series of media interviews yesterday said she was prepared to lose her Shadow Front Bench position,  over Labour's decision to vote in favour of invoking Article 50.

She told the BBC's World at One:

 It is something I am considering not supporting and voting against because 75% of the population in Hampstead and Kilburn voted to remain.

If I’m representing the wishes of my constituents I have to make a decision accordingly and that’s how I’ll vote.
 

There are definitely things to consider about democracy and elections. I don’t want to run another referendum.

Meanwhile Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party made her position clear over the Surpeme Court ruling:

 This case is a win for parliamentary democracy, and a blow for those ministers who planned to railroad Brexit through without any proper scrutiny.

The spotlight now falls on MPs – and in particular the Labour Party – to properly scrutinise the Government’s plans and act accordingly. That must mean that Labour rethink the support they’ve given to triggering article 50 prematurely, and instead join those of us who refuse to be pushed into Theresa May’s artificial Brexit timetable.

It’s astonishing that Ministers ever thought it was right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament - and their battle in the courts really does expose a contempt for the democratic process within the Conservative party.

I will not be capitulating to the Tories over Brexit – and will vote against prematurely triggering Article 50 in the Spring. As the co-leader of a Party which stands for environmental, social and economic justice I will not support a Government offering no assurances to EU nationals living in Britain, threatening to turn this country into a tax haven and planning to throw us off the Brexit cliff edge by ending our membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Amidst widespread disquiet Green Left calls for review of Green Party decision not to stand in Richmond Park by-election

Caroline Lucas's tweet last night

Green Left, the eco-socialist current within the Green Party, of which I am chair, issued the following statement this afternoon:

Green Left calls for a review of the decision not to stand in Richmond Park leaving voters a choice of candidates from parties with a record of supporting austerity and not seriously aiming to tackle climate change by opposing all airport expansion.

Green Left supports a full meeting of all members in the Richmond Park Constituency  with all members invited, to reconsider  the decision not to stand  a Green candidate  in the forthcoming by-election given issues relating to party democracy.

The statement follows debate within Green Left discussion lists and on many Green Party facebook pages. It is important to note that the disquiet is not limited to Green Left and has been expressed by a broad spectrum of members.

Mike Shaugnessy has published a full  account on the London Green Left blog HERE so I will make a few brief points:

ISSUES RELATING TO PARTY DEMOCRACY

1. Local parties are autonomous in the Green Party and it is up to them to make decisions on standing in elections or by-elections. It is not a decision of the national leadership. In this case two local parties cover the constituency and after a meeting of the Richmond Party the existing Green candidate after discussion decided to stand down in order to promote the Liberal Democrat candidate who has more chance of defeating UKIP-backed Zac Goldsmith. Her statement can be read HERE.  However in this case Jonathan Bartley co-leader, was present, by prior invitation, at the Richmond Party meeting that discussed the by-election and Caroline Lucas the other co-leader was at the Kingston meeting. There are allegations that voices were raised at the Kingston meeting which was less amenable to standing down, although a majority reluctantly went along with it following the Richmond decision.  It is further alleged that the Green Party Executive Election Co-ordinator, a former co-ordinator of the Richmond and Twickenham Green Party (she has since moved elsewhere), also made her views known to her former party. The Green Left call seeks to address these issues which may have put the local parties under unjustified pressure.

This is the notice put out for a meeting on Tuesday November 8th in Richmond Park (Details)

2. A wider discussion has taken place about the changing nature of the Green Party leadership. Our  leadership is constitutionally different to other parties. In the Green Party policy decisions are made by the members after thorough discussion on web forums, workshops at conference and finally debate and voting on the conference floor. The Progressive Alliance policy, passionately pursued by Lucas-Bartley, has not had as thorough debate as it merited. Some members fear that in their dedication to the Progressive Alliance cause, reinforced by participation in the think-tank Compass,the leadership are dragging the membership along in their wake.  In between conferences the leaders have the party's philosophical basis as a guide as well as our (probably too many) detailed policies. There is a political committee that advises in between conferences that is consulted on current issues - however 'things move fast; cannot justify wide-reaching fundamental policy changes however well meant.

ISSUES RELATING TO STANDING IN THE BY-ELECTION

3. The case for standing down is that this is a chance to reduce the Conservative majority in the House of Commons by electing the Liberal Democrat. This would be an example of the Progressive Alliance in practice which would help a more anti-Tory alliance at the General Election in 2020. The argument against is that the Liberal Democrats helped create the austerity strategy that we are still fighting and which has done so much damage to to society. The Liberal Democrat candidate herself has few progressive credentials and has supported Nick Clegg's praise for the Lib Dem role in the Coalition Government.  More widely many Greens do not accept that Lib Dems are 'left' - they may share some more libertarian stances on social issues with the Green Party but on the economy they are still wedded to neoliberalism.

4. No other party is opposed to ALL airport expansions on the grounds of air pollution and air travel's contribution to climate change. This by-election with an electorate sympathetic to environmental issues, one of which has dogged them for decades, is a fantastic opportunity to put Green Party policies on the environment, especially on the overwhelming issues of climate change, as well as those on social justice issues, centre stage.  An opportunity that will be thrown away if Greens do not stand.

5. The idea of not standing, but to continue campaigning on these issues, will make little sense to the electorate. The elector, on the doorstep, patiently listening to an earnest Green party campaigner, explaining why they are not standing, is likely to be perplexed if not apoplectic.

THE DIRECTION OF THE GREEN PARTY

6. I am an eco-socialist because I believe that climate change is the greatest issue facing us and furthermore one that cannot be solved within the present economic system which is powered by consumerism. In turn consumerism necessitates increased production and thus more emissions of harmful green gases and the plundering of the planet's finite resources. For the survival of the planet. and human, animal and plant species we need an entirely different economic and social structure.

7. We are not going to solve those problems merely by electoral means, surrendering all that urgency and campaigning, to machinations to get proportional representation introduced in 2002. Yet the Green Party has moved to electoralism as its main focus to the detriment of campaigning. In fact the campaigns (non election) has been cut to zero so you will look in vain for new Green Party placards on marches such as yesterday's on libraries.   As someone remarked in discussions over the weekend we will end up knocking on doors without any 'in-between elections' activity to talk about except campaigning for electoral alliances.  Of course a political party seeks power but it is also a campaigning organisation. Interestingly this reflects some of the current debate within the Labour Party.

IS CORBYN THE ANSWER?

8. I think this is addressed by 6 above. Even under Corbyn, Labour is still fixated on economic growth which has all the drawbacks I have mentioned.  On issues such as proportional representation and climate change John McDonnell may be ahead of Corbyn but the growth issue remains.  There may be areas in which there can be future co-operation such as socially useful production replacing weapons manufacture on the Lucas model but that seems far away at present.  Labour's nomination of Christian Wolmar to fight the Richmond Park by-election is a clever move with some arguing that he is 'as green as a Labour Party member can be without being a member of the Green Party' - but that is attached to an individual rather than to Labour Party policy.

9. None of this means that a progressive alliance, preferably a progressive socialist alliance,  could not be formed and make a significant impact on the General Election. On day to day issues, especially those such as housing, workers' rights, welfare reform, the NHS,  support for the public sector, we have much in common with Corbyn's Labour but still need to keep our unique identity and policies without getting submerged.

GREEN LEFT POLICY ON ELECTORAL ALLIANCE

Green Left welcomes the move to discuss campaigning and electoral alliances leading up to the next General Election.

Green Left has always promoted the idea of working together with the left, where we share values, and that, as much as possible the Green Party should be included in this, lending support to and endorsing Eco-socialists who are members of other parties. We did this by supporting Salma Yaqoob in parliamentary elections.

This needs further discussion with members and we welcome consultations, about it, taking place.

Green Left members with our positive standing amongst others on the Left are able to positively engage people outside the GPEW who share our values and therefore should take the initiative locally in promoting discussions with individuals, progressive groups and other left parties, such as the Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party.

Any left alliance must be committed to introducing PR for all future elections and the 'Best Placed Left Candidate’ should be a consideration in marginal seats.

Lucas: Parliament must debate and vote on triggering Article 50

Caroline Lucas MP has responded to the High Court ruling that the Government does not have power to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament.

Lucas, Green Party co-leader, said:

We welcome this ruling which shows that Ministers do not have the power to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament.

Parliament must have the opportunity to debate and vote on triggering Article 50, rather than a group of Ministers at the top table having total control over this country’s future place in the world.

The Green Party will continue to fight to protect free movement, workers’ rights and the vital environmental protections we currently have as part of the EU.

SNP, Plaid and the Green Party join forces to resist Tories' ‘toxic politics as May makes Conference Speech

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, the co-leaders of the Green Party - and their counterparts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - have joined forces with Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru to call for progressive parties to work together to resist the ‘Tories' toxic politics’.

The leaders released the statement ahead of Theresa May’s first major conference speech as Conservative Party leader:

The countries of the United Kingdom face a spiralling political and economic crisis. At the top of the Conservative Party, the narrow vote in favour of leaving the EU has now been interpreted as the pretext for a drastic cutting of ties with Europe, which would have dire economic results - and as an excuse for the most toxic rhetoric on immigration we have seen from any government in living memory.

This is a profoundly moral question which gets to the heart of what sort of country we think we live in. We will not tolerate the contribution of people from overseas to our NHS being called into question, or a new version of the divisive rhetoric of 'British jobs for British workers'. 

Neither will we allow the people of these islands, no matter how they voted on June 23rd, to be presented as a reactionary, xenophobic mass whose only concern is somehow taking the UK back to a lost imperial age. At a time of increasing violence and tension, we will call out the actions of politicians who threaten to enflame those same things.

This is not a time for parties to play games, or meekly respect the tired convention whereby they do not break cover during each other's conferences. It is an occasion for us to restate the importance of working together to resist the Tories' toxic politics, and make the case for a better future for our people and communities. We will do this by continuing to work and campaign with the fierce sense of urgency this political moment demands.

Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland
Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales
Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales
Leanne Wood, Leader of Plaid Cymru
Steven Agnew, Leader of the Green Party of Northern Ireland
Patrick Harvie, Co-convener of the Scottish Green Party
Alice Hooker-Stroud, Leader of the Wales Green Party 

Caroline Lucas said: 

Now more than ever it is vital that we present a real opposition to the Conservatives. This conference has seen them attempt to inflame tensions in our communities and set out a vision for a ‘hard brexit’ that will do untold damage to the places we represent. By uniting we have the best chance of facing them down and protecting the people who elected us

Jeremy Corbyn - the reboot: First priority is construction of a broad political alliance

'Concrete alliances on issues where we have agreement can be formed'

This article by two members of Labour Briefing Editorial Board is reprinted with the authors' permission.

Mike Phipps (Brent Central CLP) and Sue Lukes (Islington North CLP) suggest five priorities for the Labour leader following his re-election

The 2016 campaign for re-election may have added new members to the Labour Party and helped popularise some of our key ideas, but ultimately it was always an unnecessary distraction. The reality is that Britain and all of its key political institutions are in deep crisis. The priority now for the Corbyn leadership is to address the country, not the Party. We must now prepare to win the next General Election.

To do this, firstly, a broad political alliance needs to be constructed. Current electoral geography is against us, in particular the dominance of the SNP in Scotland, but also the expected loss of safe Labour seats resulting from the government’s  gerrymandered redrawing of constituency boundaries. Labour is going to need to work with community groups, trade unions, tenants, single issue campaigns and other parties from the bottom up on key fronts - health, education, civil liberties, housing, migrant rights.

Party patriotism cannot be allowed to get in the way of building the broadest possible unity around campaigns on these issues, on many of which there will be stronger supporters among Greens, Nationalists and even some Lib Dems than among some of Labour’s right wing. Concrete alliances on issues where we have agreement can be forged, as some members of the Shadow Cabinet are already doing. These will be popular and can isolate and expose those right wing leadership elements in all parties that reject mutual co-operation against the Tory government’s offensive.

Two institutional flaws in Britain’s inadequate democracy need to be put back on the table. The idea that this Tory government be allowed to claim a democratic mandate on just 36% of those who voted in the 2015 General Election is a scandal. To say that Labour too got away with this in the past is not good enough. The fact that Caroline Lucas, the newly elected joint leader of the Greens, has made proportional representation a “red line” in any discussion with Labour on electoral pacts makes this debate an unavoidable one for us.

Likewise, if real progress is to be made in Scotland and Wales, this could mean strategic alliances with nationalist forces if that’s what it takes to get Labour into government. For that to happen, Labour will have to stop playing “catch-up” on the national question and commit to the broadest possible devolution across the UK’s regions.

Our second big challenge: whatever problems the Party continues to face at national level, we must build on our base in local government and work with councillors to help define the agenda they need to deliver services. The work that Jon Trickett did on regional devolution in the 2015 leadership election can be taken forward, drawing on some of the new mayors, for example in Bristol, and mayoral candidates, in the North West, who are not hostile to Corbyn’s leadership.

Thirdly, we need to introduce some mechanisms for popular consultation on policy. These could be citizens’ assemblies or Podemos-style online circles to refine and develop policy ideas. While this is a radical departure in Labour policymaking, it fits in with Jeremy Corbyn’s own proposals, announced in August, to lead a digital revolution and strengthen online democracy. The aim would be to ensure that not just the leader but every policy has a mandate. Local party branches could play a key role in reaching out to ensure these frameworks have a real place in local political activity.

Fourthly, we have to have a clear idea of what kind of Brexit we want. By prioritising the removal of Jeremy Corbyn, many on Labour’s right who claim the Party did too little in the referendum campaign squandered a real opportunity to take the offensive on this issue against a Tory government that was - is - clueless on how to deal with Brexit. We must provide leadership on this: full integration into the single market must be a central goal. Bilateral trade agreements, let alone service agreements, are just unserious - the government has so little expertise on this, it is hiring expensive outside consultants to do the work. Seeking bilateral solutions can lead only to a further enfeebling of Britain’s declining industrial base. We also need to resolutely defend EU social entitlements and European Convention human rights for all citizens and residents from impending Tory attack.

Fifthly, our Party is in a mess at all levels, with the exception of the grassroots where the phenomenal increase in membership, trebling what it was 18 months ago, poses new challenges. We have to continue to encourage and listen to these new members if we are to retain them and make them active ingredients in a Labour victory. To this end, the full-time apparatus must be reshaped to ensure it is at the service of the members, helping them to play a full role in the Party, rather than playing a factional role, even excluding members from activity, as we have seen in recent months.

Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election is also an opportunity to strengthen the team around the leadership. Last year’s unexpected win necessitated a hasty pulling together from scratch of a new team, with all its inevitable teething troubles. This year’s long-expected victory should provide the impetus to recruit some of the finest experts who want to serve. We need a focused, efficient operation, outward-looking and responsive to the electorate, strategic in its vision and clear and concise in its core messages.

What about the MPs? The war in the PLP has to end. It’s appalling that Labour MPs who claim to care so passionately about EU membership have dragged us into these internal squabbles at a time of national crisis. The plotting has to stop. But if we get all these other things right, then probably some who resigned from Shadow Cabinet positions, as well as some who didn’t come on board before, will be prepared to work with us. If we are magnanimous in victory and reach out to them, then the diehards whose sole aim is to bring down Jeremy Corbyn can be isolated from the broader middle ground of the PLP.

Nothing succeeds like success. If we can go beyond the internal contest to address the concerns and win the trust of voters who didn’t vote Labour last time and now feel betrayed by the other parties, we can change the political landscape.

The ethnic diversity deficit in the Green Party

In a post just before the results of the Green Party leadership election were declared I predicted that we would have a more homogenous leadership - white, middle class and London/South East based.  LINK

The co-leader victory of Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley meant that there was only one deputy leader post available and this went to Ameila Womack. Shahrar Ali, the first BAME deputy leader of a major British political party, lost his position, although he remains Home Affairs spokesperson for the Greens.

On Facebook he wrote about the issue:
 
A lot of us are very frustrated about the implications of the leadership outcome on our external facing appearance. Let’s not shoot the messenger who told the story about what would happen if we didn’t take BME representation seriously. Instead look at ‘Our People’ the party website today:

What a relief that forward thinking people like Clare Lorraine Phipps and Matt Hawkins were instrumental in providing us with a more diverse team on the national spokespersons last year. 

Maybe we could find a way of merging those pages to address the faulty appearance we are projecting.

Or maybe we should be honest about our problem and leave it as it is? Serious question.
Worse would be we haven’t considered it.

What about a group shot with all leadership team, elected and spokespersons together, that would make a better image and would still be true.
  
And just in case we thought the problem was only external facing, what about representation on bodies such as GPRC and GPEx. At a recent GPEx meeting I was the only BME face around a table with sixteen persons (some of whom were also staff, admittedly). But that situation hasn’t improved since the election with other BME candidates like Benali Hamdache not having got elected either.

Here’s a group pic from July 2015 of a national strategy awayday, with the great and the good so called of the party machine. I would no longer be in that picture if taken today and nor would Sahaya who has since left the party.

In some ways this is even more alarming than the above as it suggests the problem of lack of integration is quite entrenched.

Shahrar Ali’s outgoing deputy leader speech, given at conference on Sunday, can be seen HERE 

Clearly emotions are a bit raw at the moment but this is an issue that won't go away.

In the easily overlooked Equality and Diversity report for the Green Party Conference, the coordinators' write:

The lack of diversity in the leadership and Green party executive (GPEx) elections has been incredibly disappointing, and something we must acknowledge as a failure. We need to look again at where we are going wrong and how we can improve the diversity of candidates. This is also true in our wider internal and external elections and candidate selections, and we need to look at mechanisms for encouraging marginalised groups to come forward.

...We have set up a working group with monthly meetings, including representatives from Greens of Colour and staff looking at how best to progress. To begin with we are looking at creating regional equality and diversity champions, supporting the growth of Greens of Colour and getting better at diversity monitoring as a whole.

Progressive Alliance Panel at Green Party Conference

Friday 2 September, 18.30-19.45
Progressive Alliances: The case for cross-party working and why it could be a game-changer for the Green Party

This session will explore the various options that collectively get called a 'progressive alliance'. It will launch a new book on this, “The Alternative”, which has been co-edited by 3 of our panellists. Signed copies will be available for sale afterwards. It will also launch the Green House report, The Green Case for a Progressive Pact, which will also be on sale at the event.

	Chair - Zoe Williams has been a columnist on the Guardian since 2000 - previously, she wrote a column for the London Evening Standard.  In her ceaseless endeavour to smash the patriarchy, she contributes to various magazines and news weeklies, including Marie Claire, Glamour, Good Housekeeping, Red and Grazia.  Broadcasting includes Question Time, the Daily Politics, The Politics Show and Newsnight for the BBC; Dispatches and the Channel Four News for Channel Four; a paper review for Sky News; and appearances on the Today programme, Any Questions, Woman's Hour, PM and the World Tonight for BBC Radio Four. She was 2014's Restaurant Reviewer of the Year, 2013's Print Journalist of the Year for the Speaking Together Awards, 2011's Columnist of the Year at the Workworld awards and is author of three non-fiction books, Get It Together: Why We Deserve Better Politics, The Madness of Modern Parenting and Bring It On, Baby.
	Rupert Read chairs Green House (www.greenhousethinktank.org ). He co-authored Green House's report on prospects for a progressive pact and was the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Cambridge in 2015.
	Caroline Lucas was elected as Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion in 2010. She served as leader of the Green Party of England and Wales from 2008 to 2012. From 1999-2010 she served as one of the Party's first MEPs and represented the South East region until becoming the UK's first Green MP in 2011.
	Neal Lawson is Chair of the good society pressure group Compass and was author of All Consuming (Penguin, 2009) and co-editor of The Progressive Century (Palgrave, 2001). He serves on the Advisory Board of We own it!, is a Contributing Editor of the social democracy journal Renewal which he helped found and is an Associate Member at the Bauman Institute at Leeds University. He writes regularly for the Guardian and the New Statesman.
	Chris Bowers is a writer and broadcaster, specialising in tennis, environment and politics. He commentates on tennis for radio and television, has written several books, and counts as a tennis historian; he was the founder of the Environmental Transport Association in 1990, and works as a communications consultant for the European Federation for Transport and Environment; and he is the biographer of Nick Clegg. He is a former Liberal Democrat councillor on Lewes District Council, and stood for Parliament for the Lib Dems in 2010 and 2015. More on www.chrisbowers.org.
	Lisa Nandy is the Member of Parliament for Wigan. Since being elected she has campaigned in Parliament to tackle child abuse, to save the Education Maintenance Allowance and against human rights abuses in Palestine. She has fought against low pay and zero hours contracts and campaigned against growing poverty in Wigan and across the country. In September 2015 Lisa was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Caroline Lucas: Corbyn's support for NHS Bill was not 'inept'

Caroline Lucas' letter to the Guardian

 I have no wish to intrude on the Labour leadership debates and I have no idea whether former shadow health minister Heidi Alexander is right in her critique of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership style, but for her aides to pick out Corbyn’s support for my NHS reinstatement bill as evidence both of his “ineptitude” and of his shadow chancellor’s “undermining” her strikes me as both desperate and depressing (Shadow cabinet inept and shoddy, says MP, 20 August).

My private members’ bill, drawn up after extensive consultation with health experts and health service users, would have reversed the creeping marketisation of the NHS – under both New Labour and the Conservatives – and stripped away the costly market mechanisms that waste NHS money and lead to inefficiencies and the fragmentation of services.

Perhaps a more interesting question is why the rest of the Labour party didn’t join their SNP, Plaid and Lib Dem colleagues in giving it their backing too. With a few honourable exceptions, they chose to abstain instead. Yet this is precisely the kind of policy a successful Labour party would surely be expected to promote – as well as demonstrating a greater willingness to work alongside colleagues from other parties on those areas where there is common ground between us.

Overcoming party tribalism and finding practical ways of working together will be crucial to any hope of progressive policies finding a majority at the next election.

Caroline Lucas MP
Green, Brighton Pavilion

Some of the issues lurking beneath the surface of the Green Party leadership election

Line up at a hustings for leader and deputy. Amelia Womack was on holiday.

Written in individual capacity 

As the great Labour leadership battle storms on amidst thunderous roars, flashes of lightning and torrents of abuse, in a comparatively calm but neglected corner of the political firmament another leadership contest is taking place - for the leadership, deputy leadership and Executive of the Green Party of England and Wales.

News Thump: 'Green Party picks worst possible moment to hold leadership election' LINK takes a well-aimed satirical swipe at the Greens' failure to get even minimal coverage of their election but it is worth looking at some of the issues that are lurking just below the surface.

Some are not specific to this election but reflect longer term issues. An obvious one, now reflected in the Labour leadership contest, is the relationship between the Greens as part of a wider campaigning environmental and social justice movement and the Greens as an electoralist organisation.  The reduction of the party's campaigning (non election) budget to zero means that there will be few, if any, campaign materials available at the Autumn conference.  The recent emphasis on a 'progressive alliance' with other political parties, strongly supported by Caroline Lucas, raises all sorts of issues about electoral pacts, red (green?) lines, and what is meant by the slippery term 'progressive'. Much will depend on the outcome of the Labour leadership election where Labour support for proportional representation will be deal-breaker.

As Caroline Lucas is standing for the leadership on a joint ticket with Jonathan Bartley the progressive alliance has featured in many of the hustings. Concerns have been expressed that this concept has not been fully debated by the membership and rather than emerging from the party's very comprehensive policy making process has come from 'on high'.  Deputy leader candidate Shahrar Ali has called for full internal party consultation on the issue.  It is complicated by the fact that the Green Party is not a top-down organisation with centralised direction but one where local parties have autonomy. Final decisions on whether to contest seats or stand down in favour of an agreed 'progressive alliance' candidates rests with them.

In terms of joint campaigning with other political parties, independent socialists and environmentalists, trade unionists  and community groups this already happens on many issues including fracking, austerity, local government cuts, housing, union disputes, academisation, public transport, library closure and much else.  When we take part in such actions the lack of Green Party campaign material is a weakness.

There are those in the Green Party who view the progressive alliance with scepticism and others who go further in arguing that Greens should stand on their own policies which are inimical to Labour's commitment to economic growth.

The jibe that Ukip is more diverse than the Green Party has enough truth in it to require the Green Party undertake some serious self-examination.  The hustings photograph above illustrates, with the exception of Shahrar Ali (standing) the all-white nature of candidates for the leadership and deputy leadership of the party.  There is also a gender imbalance in the leadership contest with Caroline Lucas the only female although three of the seven deputy candidates are women.

Class is an area when the Green Party has come under attacks as an essentially middle class institution and although the membership is changing with the recruitment of ex-Labour activists and a thriving Green Party Trade Union Group, the public face of the Green Party is still middle class, white and largely London-based.

There are candidates in this election with working class roots or a record of activism in working class communities including Martie Warin from the ex-pit village of Easington in County Durham, and Cllr David Williams  now in Oxfordshire but originally from Salford.  Among the deputy contenders Andrew Cooper has represented the Greens on Kirklees Council since 1999.

The candidiates' views on working with trade unions can be read HERE

Turning to issues specific to this election the one to emerge early on was the joint candidature of Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley LINK. In giving up the leadership previous Lucas had said she wanted to open up the way for more voices to represent the party. Critics immediately suggested that standing for the leadership in 2016 as well as being the sole MP would effectively reduce the number of voices.  Party rules state that if co-leaders are elected then there will be only one deputy (Shahrar Ali and Amelia Womack were previously male and female deputies).  A further criticism was that by announcing their co-leadership bid early on Lucas-Bartley effectively discouraged other candidates. Given Lucas' prominence and well-deserved reputation, others were unlikely to come forward as they would expect Lucas to win.

The issue of workload is also being discussed by activists. Previously Natalie Bennett, Amelia Womack and Shahrar Ali shared the official leadership positions supplemented by Caroline Lucas and the Green MEPs.  If Lucas is elected co-leader the official leadership is reduced by one. In addition she will have to combine leadership with the role of MP. As the leader spends a lot of the time touring the country, speaking to local parties and attending events this aspect of the role may suffer although the counter-argument is that Bartley will do the bulk of this work.

Although there is a strong case against the media dictating our leadership structures it is worth considering how the media, especially TV and Radio, will cope with co-leaders. It was a feature of the General Election that interviewers did not really understand that in the Green Party the leader is a spokesperson for policies decided by the membership.  They often expected Bennett to be an expert on every aspect of policy or to make up policy and initiatives on the spot. Combine that with a preference for one recognisable face and voice then we can expect Lucas to dominate the media with a blurring between her leadership and MP roles. Policy and strategy expectations will be deepened by her parliamentary role so on issues such as the progressive alliance she will be pushed to comment beyond existing policy.

Members' deciding policy is a jealously guarded principle in the Green Party and members are likely to oppose any erosion of that role.  Given the growth in party membership there are issues around managing larger conferences (at present any member can attend) and the possibility of switching to a delegate conference. Although the Green Party trumpets its democratic structures the current right of anyone to attend is counter-balanced by the issue of affordability. Despite differing charges for conference admission according to capacity to pay, fares and accommodation are expensive, so those economically disadvantaged are less able to afford to attend.

The concerns outlined above along with members who want to see Ali and Womack continue as deputy leaders has led to some members advocating a vote for RON in the leadership elections. RON stands for Re-open Nominations.  They argue that a  winning vote for RON would both enable a wider and more diverse field to come forward for the leadership and potentially allow Ali and Womack to continue as deputies.

Others argue that RON is extremely unlikely to win, if it did it would be an embarrassment to the party, and despite misgivings Lucas-Bartley is the only real show in town.


Declaration of interest: I have backed Shahrar Ali standing as deputy leader on the grounds of his effective communication skills  and his commitment to internal party democracy. We do not of course agree on everything!

10 attempts by minister but still no consistent or coherent UK government definiton of extremism

From Peter Tatchell Foundation

“The government’s planned Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are so vague and ill-defined that they are a potential threat to free speech and dissenting opinions. When questioned by the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on 29 June, the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley MP, offered ten different definitions of extremism in just over 60 minutes. The government wants to penalise extremism before it has even agreed what it is. This renders EDOs both anti-democratic and ineffectual. They are not consistent with human rights law,” said Anastasia Kyriacou, the advocacy officer of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Watch the video  above of the government minister trying but failing ten times to offer a clear and consistent definition of extremism:

The government has belatedly agreed with demands by the Defend Free Speech campaign for a public consultation on EDOs – although a date and timetable has not yet been set.

Below is a summary of the current state of play on EDOs by Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign.

The Defend Free Speech campaign website: http://defendfreespeech.org.uk

The campaign for free speech human rights is supported by a diverse cross-section of organisations, such as the National Secular Society, Christian Institute, Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, Index On Censorship, Freedom Association, English Pen, Manifesto Club and Article 19.

Prominent individual supporters include: Caroline Lucas MP, Lord Dear, Mohammed Amin, David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Prof Timothy Garton Ash, Fiona Bruce MP and Baroness Jones of Moulescoomb.

Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign, writes:

It was with considerable alarm that we watched the recent evidence session of the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley, before Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR).

In a little over an hour, Mrs Bradley put forward no fewer than ten possible definitions of ‘extremism’, including: “The public promotion of an ideology that can lead to greater harms” and “publicly promoting an ideology where the activity they are undertaking is not criminal and does not go beyond reasonable doubt but we know that that activity leads to a hate crime, a terrorist activity, or maybe FGM” (female genital mutilation).

We wrote to the minister to set out our fears. Here’s what we said:

The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed 'civil orders regime' will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion.

Finding terrorists and their enablers is like finding a needle in a haystack. Forcing the police and security services to operate at the much lower threshold of 'non-violent extremism' will massively increase the range of people and ideas under investigation, thereby making the haystack considerably bigger. Placing millions more people under suspicion is more likely to mask the activities of terrorists than to highlight them.

Your difficulty in articulating a clear, consistent definition of the kind of activity the Government aims to punish via civil orders was very concerning. The Home Office has been working on the issue for well over a year and yet the impression was given that the Government still has no clear idea how to legislate for what it wants to achieve.

Harriet Harman summed up the situation accurately when she told the Committee:

‘Still we don’t know what civil orders are being talked about, we don’t know what the sanctions are likely to be, we don’t know what the definitions are, we have no specificity about the timetable in terms of when the consultation will start, how long it will be. We know there won’t be a draft Bill, but we really are none the wiser about anything else’.

We were grateful that you confirmed that there would be a public consultation. But for the consultation to have any value, and for stakeholders to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome, it must include precise statutory definitions that can then be subjected to scrutiny.

As members of the Committee pointed out, a consultation will be worthless if it does not give the actual wording with which the Government intends to resolve the tension between security and liberty. As it is, the planned consultation looks more a fishing expedition, carried out in the hope that somebody somewhere has a good idea of how this legislation could be drafted.

We concluded our letter by requesting an urgent meeting with the minister, and reassurances of a further consultation when the Home Office can tell the public how it actually plans to legislate in this incredibly sensitive and important area.

As we said quite clearly to the minister, when the matters at stake include terrorism and the fundamental civil liberties of millions, the Home Office cannot simply shrug its shoulders and say ‘we’re not sure what we’re doing’.

The groups backing Defend Free speech wrote to the Home Office back in January requesting a consultation on Extremism Disruption Orders. Having failed to respond for five months, the Government finally conceded the need for such a consultation in the Queen’s Speech in May.

Shahrar Ali calls for Green Party internal referendum on party's Progressive Alliance positions

Shahrar Ali, a contender for deputy leadership of the Green Party, a post he currently holds, has called for a possible internal referendum on the negotiating position the party should hold in an discussion on a Progressive Alliance with other parties.

In a Facebook posting over the weekend Ali wrote:

I've been on two leadership hustings this weekend and I must say one of the most controversial topics of engagement was on Progressive Alliances. I believe there's been a mismatch between our public pronouncements on the matter and member expectation. It's imperative we don't get the cart before the horse.

He followed up this somewhat opaque statement stating:

It does frustrate me sometimes when we [the Green Party] appear to cut corners. Engagement and consultation were never meant to be easy, but it's a mistake to think of due process as an encumbrance. To the contrary, those of us in position of responsibility have obligation to engage and not circumvent. Better decisions will result.

Other posters express concern that the party is moving towards a top-down model where leaders make policy rather than members, The Progressive Alliance idea was strongly backed by Green MP Caroline Lucas LINK who is a candidate for the leadership position on a job share basis with Jonathan Bartley.

Green Left, the eco-socialist grouping within the Green Party of England and Wales,  adopted the following position on the Progressive Alliance at its last General Meeting:

 Green Left welcomes the move to discuss campaigning and electoral alliances leading up to the next General Election.

Green Left has always promoted the idea of working together with the left, where we share values, and that, as much as possible, the Green Party should be included in this, lending support to and endorsing Eco-socialists who are members of other parties. We did this by supporting Salma Yaqoob in parliamentary elections.

This needs further discussion with members and we welcome consultations, about it, taking place.

Green Left members with our positive standing amongst others on the Left are able to positively engage people outside the GPEW who share our values and therefore should take the initiative locally in promoting discussions with individuals, progressive groups and other left parties, such as the Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party.

Any left alliance must be committed to introducing PR for all future elections and the 'Best Placed Left Candidate’ should be a consideration in marginal seats.