Showing posts with label Green Left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Left. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 April 2020

Green Party must stand shoulder to shoulder with workers during Covid-19 crisis




The Committees of Green Left and Green Party Trade Union  Group (both Green Party organisations) have issued the following statement:
Green Left and Green Party Trade Union Group (GPTU) call on all Green Party of England and Wales’ publicly elected representatives, MP, Assembly Members and Councillors, to seek out and work with trade unions and local and national authorities to ensure that:
· all essential workers are provided with adequate protective equipment, sanitary measures and testing during the CV19 crisis. We note that this should not only include health and caring workers but also cleaners, food and pharmaceutical distribution and preparation workers, transport workers and security workers. 
· no threats of dismissal, pay cuts or other means of coercion are used to compel workers to work when they are in danger of transmitting or contracting CV19. 
· workers who take industrial action due to the unsafe attitude of some employers and government, are supported, so that they do not suffer financial and/or disciplinary sanctions for taking such actions 
· attempts to organise non-unionised workers are supported.
*The Green Party of England & Wales (GPEW) is a significant political presence at local authority level with over 300 Councillors many organised in the Association of Green Councillors (AGC). 
They and other public representatives can play a positive role in defending workers rights at a local level. 
We would also ask local Green Parties to stand shoulder to shoulder with workers over this issue at this very important time.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

Green Left rejects the Green Party’s remain pact with Liberal Democrats

Only a few days ago

Green Left says ‘no’ to supporting Jo Swinson’s second rate Tories. The Liberal Democrats nationally oppose our Green values.
Green Left believes a step forward for the green movement in the UK has taken place recently, with many people joining both the Green Party and Labour Party, reflecting real concerns about the threat of climate change to our very existence on this planet.
Green Left welcomes the fact that the Green New Deal is gaining support on the left, especially in the Labour Party,  and we believe that Greens should engage with others who share the same policies as us, to build the green movement for change which is the only way to save the planet. 
Green Left believes the mass movement of Extinction Rebellion and the Youth Strikes shows up the pro capitalist parties for what they are – gambling with the planet. The Lib Dems are part of the problem not the solution.
The Liberal Democrats are a party whose leader, Jo Swinson, received funding from a major fracking company and voted for fracking. She and her party also voted for the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and the introduction of Universal Credit, the scrapping of the education maintenance, increased tuition fees, opposed increasing the tax rate on those earning £150,000, supported cuts to the police and emergency services, supported zero hours contracts, supported the badger cull and did little to challenge climate change, preferring instead nuclear power.
The Lib Dems are also uncritical supporters of the EU, unlike the Greens who want major democratic reform and accountability. The Lib Dems reject a proper further referendum that allows people a democratic say on any EU deal or no deal.
Green Left believes Caroline Lucas was right to warn how dangerous the Lib Dems position of ignoring the Referendum result, and instead going for Revoke, is  : “I certainly think that the Lib Dem way out is arrogant, self-indulgent, cynical and very dangerous. I think that will put fuel on the fire.” LINK
Green Party policy has been for a second people’s vote, and in this case is closer to that of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, who also support a second  referendum, than the Liberal Democrats’ Revoke position.
Green Left is very concerned that the implied call to support Liberal Democrat General Election  candidates where the Green Party is not standing and where the Labour candidate was either the sitting MP or is the best placed candidate to defeat the Tory MP is  an incorrect position to take - especially if that person supports anti-austerity, proportional representation, a Green New Deal and a people’s vote.
Therefore, we urge Green Party members and supporters to support the Labour Party candidate in these areas.
The UniteToRemain pact contradicts the Green Party’s initial position that this should be a Climate Emergency election. Instead the pact makes it a Brexit election.
Editor's note: I am a member of Green Left and was involved in writing this statement which I fully support

Thursday, 25 July 2019

Green Party backs September 20th climate stoppages and strikes - 'we can win a fairer world and safer climate'





The Green Party has expressed its support for the University and College Union (UCU) motion to the Trade Union Congress (TUC) annual conference calling on affiliated unions, student unions at colleges and universities and politicians and community groups, to support the call for a 30-minute workday stoppage in solidarity with the global school student strike on 20th September.


Jonathan Bartley, co-leader, said:

The Green Party has been proud to support the climate strikes, and we’re proud to be the first party to formally support UCU’s call for a stoppage of work in solidarity with the general climate strike this September.


We call on all individuals, workplaces, companies and institutions to support this call, and stand in solidarity with climate strikers everywhere.


It’s amazing to see the teachers at UCU pick up the torch from their students, and take it straight to the core of the union movement. Workers are at the heart of the solution to the climate emergency.


When we transition to a zero-carbon economy in the decades ahead, we’ll put the whole country to work. A Green New Deal would unlock billions of pounds of investment in this transition, ensuring a good, green unionised job for everyone who wants one.
With workers standing with school strikers and activists, we can win a fairer world and a safer climate.
Green Left , an influential Eco-Socialist group within the Green Party (GPEW)  also backed the strike.


Green Left said:

The struggle against Climate Change is taking mighty steps forward in the UK with three Trade Unions, University and College Union (UCU), Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU) and National Education Union (NEU).

The Unions are both declaring support for the Youth Climate Change protests and strikes and are now taking a motion to the 5.6 million strong Trade Union Congress (TUC) asking for solidarity action on the day of the next Global Strike on the 20th September 2019.

Ordinary people, including workers are the ones who will be most impacted by Climate Change and we need to take action to defend ourselves.'
The motion is a call for workers to show support in a work stoppage for 30 minutes on the day as well as other actions.

A model template is available for local union branches at the CACCTU site HERE

-->

Wednesday, 27 September 2017

Naomi Klein's speech should strengthen the hand of Labour Party ecosocialists




Naomi Klein's speech at the Labour Party Conference was well received yesterday and should strengthen the hand of those members who want to see the party take a stronger line on challenging climate change.

Her praise of Corbyn's Labour Party was a little OTT at times but it also contained ecosocialist themes that reflect the position of Green Left (the ecosocialist current in the Green Party) and could build links between the two parties.

Saturday, 7 January 2017

WANTED: Councils to take the lead in campaigning against cruel cuts to local government


-->
Just over a year ago Labour leaders Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell issued their instruction to Labour councillors that in the face of cuts to government funding of local authorities that they should set legal budgets - in effect implement cuts.   This was accompanied by talk of leading a mass movement of councillors against austerity and the cuts.    At the same time many independent activists and some from smaller left parties, including the Greens, had joined Labour or Momentum seeing it as the only way to oppose austerity.

The campaign never materialised but the 'legal budget' edict disarmed critics of Labour council cuts. The impact of cuts can be clearly seen in terms of  closure of  youth provision, closure of libraries, the increase in pot-holed roads in many city areas as well as the crisis in social care and the out-sourcing and privatisation of services.  Many activists who would have been in the forefront of campaigns are now involved in the debilitating  internal Labour and Momentum struggles.

At the time a Green Left colleague wrote LINK
No doubt JC & JM feel that they “have no choice” as 95%+ of their councillors support this approach. But it does undermine those trade unionists and campaigners actively arguing for them to stand up to the Tories. It implies there is no choice, when of course there is a choice. Labour has over 100 Councils. If Labour nationally opposed the cuts and organised some or all of its councils to refuse to implement them, there is absolutely no way the Government could send in Commissioners to run them all. It would provoke a huge national debate on the cuts and local democracy, and have the potential to force the Government to back down partly or wholly. As it is, right-wing Labour councillors are tweeting the letter to attack anyone on the Left campaigning against the cuts.  

In the end, the problem with the JC letter is that it completely understates the scale of the attack on local government and local democracy. This is not “business as usual”, a few nasty cuts etc.  This is a once in a lifetime, permanent dismantling and shrinkage of the local state, a huge extension of privatisation of local services and an undermining of local democracy itself - there is little point in having locally elected councillors if their job is (from Nicholas Ridley’s famous quote): “to meet once a year to hand out the contracts”.  

The only silver lining in the letter is its appeal for councillors to support local campaigners (even if this is clearly contradictory to their councillors supporting cuts budgets!) and to be organising mass campaigns against local government cuts. This gives an opportunity to campaigners to point out that Labour councillors are only doing one half of the message from the JC letter, and not the other.
Michael Calderbank, of Brent Central Labour Party and a Momentum supporter responded:
Well, yes, I tend to agree with your Green Left colleague. But in order to have dictated terms to local councillors, JC and JMc would have need there to be a mass campaign against local cuts. At long last they are trying to kick the Labour LGA into actually running a political campaign - all too often it's as though Labour councillors have forgotten they are members of a political party and just presented themselves as competent and compassionate administrators, powerless to do better in the circumstances. Frankly it's no good claiming to be an anti-austerity party in opposition whilst going along with it where we're in power.
Soon Brent Labour will be selecting candidates to stand in the 2018 local election and the candidate's stance on cuts will be a test for those who joined Labour in the Corbyn. One current anti-Corbyn councillor has already announced that he will not stand again and will move out of Brent. Those elected will have been left a legacy of cuts to be implemented in their first year:



Source Brent Budget Scrutiny Report

Bristol Green Party, in a city facing damaging cuts again this year, yesterday returned to the need for a national campaign LINK:

As January blues begin to kick in and the grim extent of the cuts to Bristol City Council becomes even clearer, Green councillors have responded to the Mayor’s Corporate Strategy consultation 2017-2022  calling for bold opposition and creative alternatives to the downward spiral of austerity. 

Greens are warning that the £92 million cuts forced on the Council by the Tory austerity programme will devastate public services across Bristol. The Greens are calling upon Bristol’s Mayor to take a leading role in opposing national austerity alongside other cities, networks, unions and progressive parties. They have also put forward an alternative vision for local government financing, including calls for a return of unallocated business rates to local government and for Bristol to receive its fair share of infrastructure spending. 

Leader of the Green Councillor Group, Charlie Bolton said:
Further cuts to the council will destroy many of the public services we all rely on. Services for older people, those with disabilities, our young people and children will all be slashed. Local traffic schemes that keep our children safe as they walk to school, well-loved library services and the parks that provide the ‘green lungs’ for our city will all be affected.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. These cruel cuts to our services are a choice that is being made by this Tory Government – to dismantle our public services instead of raising money by closing tax loopholes, reforming our finance system, bringing good growth to our economy or increasing tax for the top 1%. Essential public services are being abandoned, yet Government remains committed to the soaring costs of replacing Trident, building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and developing the HS2 vanity project.  

Molly Scott Cato, MEP, Green Party Economics Spokesperson and Green Parliamentary Candidate for Bristol West said:
We know austerity is a downward spiral. As you cut the state you reduce job quality and tax revenue, leading to less money available for investment, which in turn cuts the state still further. It’s time to say loud and clear that austerity has failed and that we value our public services and believe they should be properly funded. 
Tony Dyer, Green Party Local Government Spokesperson and Green Parliamentary candidate for Bristol South added: 

Many of our cities are being disproportionally affected by Tory cuts. Bristol has already suffered three times more cuts than neighbouring authorities. The 10 Core Cities outside London are all run by Labour. They are home to almost 19 million people and contribute more than a quarter of the combined wealth of England, Wales and Scotland – so why aren’t we seeing more vocal opposition to this latest unjust assault on our services? We call upon Bristol’s Mayor to take the leading role in opposing national austerity alongside other cities, networks, unions and progressive parties.
Figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies demonstrate that cuts have not been shared equally across the country LINK  



Wednesday, 7 December 2016

The issues behind the Green Party's Richmond Park furore as Green Left calls for transparency

Green Left*, the eco-socialist group with the Green Party, has issued the following statement over the controversy over the Richmond Park by-election, which includes allegations over undue pressure on local members to stand aside for the Liberal Democrat candidate in order to defeat Zac Goldsmith and a donation to party funds (eventually refused) to encourage them to do so. LINK
Green Left  welcomes the Green Party Executive's and Green Party  Regional Council’s decisions to consider the serious  issues raised in the so-called ‘Richmond Report’. Transparency and accountability are essential in this process.  We look forward to the Green Party 2017 Conference democratically arriving at a clear policy on the ‘Progressive Alliance’. furore
The 'Progressive Alliance' put forward by Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley in their co-leadership campaign is itself controversial within the party, putting aside the specific issues around the Richmond Report.

I have recently summed up the various positions thus:
Following some of the discussion, mainly on FB, it seems that there are several positions from Green Party members on recent moves on the 'Progressive Alliance' (PA) (a Venn diagram may be useful!)

1. Those who are for a PA & think that the Lucas-Bartley overwhelming leadership mandate and the fact that a PA was their main platform justifies their current position
2. Those who are against a PA BUT think that -ditto-
3. Those who are for PA but think that Lucas - Bartley have usurped the constitutional role of the membership in making policy
4. Those who are against PA AND think that -ditto-
5. Those who think that a PA is necessary to get rid of the Tories perhaps even in this parliament
6. Those who think that a PA is the only way to get PR in 2020 and thus have more Green MPs in 2025 (little mention how many more Ukip or other far right MPs there may be)
7. Those who think that Lib Dems are progressive on social issues, climate change but right-wing on the economy
8. Those who think think that the Lib Dems are beyond the pale because of their previous record in Coalition
9. Those who are for us holding our noses and reaching a deal with ANY party that will support bringing in PR during the 2020-25 parliament.
10. Those who want to add other redlines to any deal with other parties including austerity, climate change
I think ten is enough for now, although there is also the issue of political campaigning with other parties and organisations on common issues outside of any electoral deal.
In the Richmond case the argument about progressing the campaign for the introduction of proportional representation through deals with other parties (though Labour isn't playing ball) was supplemented by the argument that getting the Tories out should be the primary aim and that would be furthered by reducing the narrow Tory majority in Parliament.

That view was countered by the one that suggested the by-election was an ideal opportunity to show-case the Green Party's policy on opposing ALL airport expansions as essential in reducing emissions to help deal with global warming and climate change.

* I am chair of Green Left


Sunday, 6 November 2016

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.






Saturday, 10 September 2016

So what happens to the rest if all Brent secondary schools select the most 'academically able'?


Theresa May wants all secondary schools to be able to select. Here in Brent with no local authority secondary schools, that could mean multi-academy chains, stand alone academies and free schools fighting to select the most 'academically able' leaving those deemed 'not academic' along with special needs children and those in the first stages of learning English where exactly?

The NUT has been quick off the mark with this EduFacts special on Grammar Schools:
  • Prime Minister Theresa May has expressed support for more places to be made available in academically selective state schools.1Secretary of State for Education Justine Greening has said that she is ‘open minded’ about a return to a grammar school system.2
  • The creation of more grammar schools would have to lead to the creation of more secondary modern schools, or the de facto conversion of comprehensive schools in areas where new grammar schools were built or where existing grammar schools opened on new sites. Comprehensive schools in areas where existing grammar schools are expanding have already expressed concerns about the impact that this will have on the “intake profiles and therefore the ethos” of their schools.3
  • 23% of the public want existing grammar schools to be scrapped and a further 17% want existing grammar schools to be allowed to remain, but do not want grammar school expansion or the creation of new grammar schools. As only 38% of people support more grammar school places via new schools or the expansion of existing school a higher proportion of the public oppose the creation of more grammar school places than those who support a growth in selective state education.4
  • Those in favour of grammar schools argue that selective state education allows academic pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds to secure better academic success and helps to close the attainment gap between richer and less well-off pupils. However, the evidence shows that this is not the case.
  • Less than 3% of all pupils going to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals (FSM), against an average of 18% in other schools in the areas where they are located. For example, in 2016 Kent County Council reported that 2.8% of pupils attending grammar schools were eligible for FSM, compared to 13.4% in non-selective Kent secondary schools.5
  • Socio-economically disadvantaged students, who are eligible for FSM or who live in poor neighbourhoods, are much less likely to enrol in a grammar school even if they score highly on key stage two (KS2) tests.6 For example, among Kent children who achieved Level 5+ in Reading, Writing and Maths at Key Stage 2 in 2015, 51.4% claiming FSM were attending a grammar school compared to 72.7% of non-claiming children.7
  • Nationally, over four times as many children are admitted to grammar schools from outside the state sector – largely fee-paying preparatory schools which account for 6% of pupils aged 10 – than children entitled to FSM.8
  • Pupils, irrespective of their background, have a lower chance of attending a grammar school if they attend primary schools with greater proportions of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, with special educational needs or with English as an additional language. Nationally, almost a quarter of state school pupils receive private or home tuition, rising to 40% in London.9 Children from more affluent homes that can afford the fees of up to £50 an hour for private tutoring will be at a significant advantage when sitting the 11+ grammar school entrance test. Local campaigners in Buckinghamshire found that, although over £1 million had been spent on developing a test that would minimise the impact of additional coaching, the new test made no difference to the large gap between the pass rates of pupils from poor and wealthy areas, with the worst results seen among FSM pupils.10
  • It has been suggested that new grammar schools would be located in low and middle income areas, thus boosting the chances of academic children living in those areas.11 However, the location of a grammar school in a more disadvantaged area does not mean that children living in close proximity to the school will have the chance to attend. Stand-alone grammar schools often draw large numbers of their pupils from outside their local authority. In 2013, for example, two-thirds of pupils at grammar schools in Stoke-on-Trent and Kingston-upon-Thames lived in a different authority area.12 In Buckinghamshire more children living outside the county pass the 11+ than local children, with children travelling distances of up to 13km to attend the county’s grammar schools.13
  • Giving a grammar school in a low and middle income area a small catchment area would not solve this problem. Proximity to a desirable school has an impact on house prices, with a premium of up to 12% on the cost of property within the catchment area of the highest performing schools.14
  • Selective education systems are also linked with greater inequality in social outcomes later in life.15 Grammar schools do not raise educational standards for the majority of children. Although pupils who pass the 11+ and are admitted to grammar schools generally achieve well, this is at the expense of the majority of children who do not get a grammar school place. The evidence shows that the attainment of pupils at secondary moderns is lower than that of comprehensive schools. 16
1 Tim Ross Grammar School supporters optimistic’ 18-year ban will be lifted by Theresa May's new government The Telegraph 16 July 2016. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.
2 BBC News Justine Greening 'open minded' about new grammar schools in England  17 July 2016 accessed on 16 August 2016 here.
3 Rednock School letter to Stroud High School 29 January 2015 here and Archway School letter to Marling School 26 February 2015 here.
4 YouGov poll published 15 August 2016. Accessed here.
5 Kent County Council Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Commission (June 2016) p. 10 here.
6The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar: Entry to Grammar Schools for Disadvantaged Pupils in England (November 2013) p. 5 here.
7 Kent County Council Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Commission (June 2016) p. 10
8 The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar p. 5
9 The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar p. 5
10 John Dickens Questions over £1m ‘tutor-proof’ 11-plus tests Schools Week 27 November 2015. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here..
11Richard Vaughn Exclusive: new grammar schools plan 'unlikely' to go nationwide The TES 13 August 2016. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.
12 The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar p. 5
13 David King Critics hit out at number of non-Bucks children passing 11-plus and ‘huge’ distances pupils travel to grammars The Bucks Herald 18 December 2015. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.
14 Steven Gibbons Valuing Schools Through House Prices Centre Piece (Autumn 2012) p. 2 here.
15 OECD Equations and Inequalities – Making Mathematics Accessible to All (2016) p. 90 here.
16 Freddie Whittaker Fact-check: Do the arguments for new grammar schools stack up? Schools Week 25 July 2016. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.

As always Michael Rosen is well worth reading on the subject HERE and the Local Schools Network has published a well argued piece by Janet Downs HERE.

My Green Left colleague Mike Shaughnessy has written about the issue on the London Green Left blog LINK,

A petition against the expansion of Grammar schoolc can be found HERE

Twitter has been busy since the announcement and it is clear the Prime Minister has a battle on her hands

 

Friday, 26 August 2016

Progressive Alliance misgivings? Emergency Motion for Green Party Conference as Lucas reiterates support for electoral pact





In an earlier posting LINK I wrote about some of the underlying issues that had emerged during the Green Party internal elections campaign. (Voting closed yesetrday) One of these was the 'Progressive Alliance' and misgivings about the way this strategy has emerged have now become the subject of an Emergency Motion to the party conference which begins on September 2nd.

The London Green Left blog has an article giving a range of views about the issue HERE

As with all emergency resolutions priority is decided by the number of signatories.
EMERGENCY RESOLUTION PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCES
The recent political climate, combined with the long-term struggle to achieve proportional representation, has highlighted the need for decisive, cross-party action to demand electoral reform and give the country the best chance of a representative, accountable government. However, ongoing issues with other parties have exposed and intensified hostilities in some areas, and therefore any political strategy proposed by the Green Party of England and Wales which resembles an alliance must be developed both in close consultation with members and local parties, and taking into account issues which would create barriers when putting such an alliance into practice.

It is felt by many that discussions around this so far have taken place without due transparency, and are tantamount to the leadership team and key elected representatives creating policy outside of the democratically mandated member-led process.

Conference instructs GPEx to assemble a working group to carry out a comprehensive, initial consultation with individual members, local parties, and member groups before the idea of a Progressive Alliance is developed any further; and that the responses are used to inform the terms of such an alliance should it become a realistic direction for the party’s future political strategy.

Conference notes: Once an arrangement is proposed, it must be supported by GPEx, and put to GPRC for agreement on behalf of the party, as per Section 11, clause (v) of the Constitution.
Green Party members who wish to support this motion should copy and paste this, signed with their name and local party, to soc@greenparty.org.uk

Meanwhile in an interview with the BBC today LINK Caroline Lucas reiterated her support for an electoral alliance but stressed that was her personal view and ultimately the party had to decide:
In a sign of the determination by the Greens' only MP to boost the party's presence in Parliament, Ms Lucas told the BBC she wants "all the options on the table" when it comes to the possibility of talking to other parties before the next general election.
She said:
It doesn't make sense for parties of the left to be constantly fighting each other and meanwhile the Conservatives come through and we've seen that time after time in the 2015 general election.
I think what we are looking at is those marginal constituencies where some kind of agreement between progressive parties might be able to make a difference.
Asked whether this meant she was prepared to see a Green candidate drop out of a constituency race so long as Labour did the same elsewhere, the MP for Brighton Pavilion said: "Personally I would".

Vote 'split'

Such a pact could be designed to prevent the "left" vote being split between Labour and the Greens in some constituencies, allowing Ms Lucas' party to target certain seats while offering Labour a clear run elsewhere without Green opposition.
She stressed it was ultimately for the party to decide on what was her personal view on the issue.

Saturday, 13 February 2016

Can Red and Green work as a team?


People on the left are sometimes perplexed when I say I am a socialist and ask why then I am not in the Labour Party. This was easier to answer under the pro-austerity pro-neoliberalism previous Labour leadership but Corbyn's victory does raise the possibility of joint work and campaigning.

However, as an ecosocialist and member of Green Left I will still have differences even with Corbyn Labour. Some of the issues are covered in this Guest Blog by Mike Shaughnessy which was first published on the Green Left blog LINK

 
This is a write up of a talk I gave earlier this week to my local Green Party meeting in Haringey, north London, on ecosocialism.

Ecosocialism is a green political philosophy - it is an ecocentric and democratic socialism.

It is not like twentieth century socialisms, is more like nineteenth century socialisms and owes a fair amount to anarchist theory. Twentieth century socialisms had, if anything, an even more dismal record than capitalism on ecology.

Ecosocialism is anti-capitalist, and sees the capitalist system as the effective cause of the ecological crisis.

Capitalism commodifies everything, puts a price on it, which is exchange value, and uses the earth as a resource for production and sink for the dumping of toxic waste from the production process, usually free of cost. Climate change is the most spectacular aspect of the ecological crisis, but not the only one. Capitalism releases toxic pollution, into the air, land and sea.

Capitalism is unable to solve the ecological crisis it has set going, because the logic of the system is to ‘grow or die’. Growth that is exponential and the planet is now close to its limit of being able to buffer the damage caused by this required infinite growth, on a finite planet.

I’m going to say something about the historical lineage of the philosophy, threads of which can be traced back for as long as human beings have formed communities, where some elements of ecosocialism can be found in the way people have lived in balance with nature. And today, many indigenous peoples around the world still practice some of these forms of social and economic management.

In South America ecosocialism has found its way into government. Venezuela, until the recent right wing election victory, had a department of ecosocialism. Bolivia still runs forms of ecosocialism in government and has fought off many capitalist corporations plunder of the country’s natural resources, in mining and gas extraction on common land.

There is an English line too. The first stories to be told about Robin Hood, were of a man fighting against crown enclosures of common land. He has become famous for ‘robbing from the rich to give to the poor’, but in fact what he was doing, was fighting to stop the rich robbing from the poor.

Then there were the Diggers during the English civil war, who set up communes on common land and called for a ‘common treasury of the land’.

And William Morris, the nineteenth century socialist and craft movement champion. If you read his novel News from Nowhere, it describes an ecosocialist utopia.

In the modern age, ecosocialism emerged in the mid 1980s, in the west, in the United States, although you can argue quite convincingly that in the US in goes back to Murray Bookchin’s social ecology movement in the mid 1960s. And in the east, in India, where to a lesser extent ecosocialism emerged but more so in the philosophy of ecofeminism, which is a similar philosophy to ecosocialism. For example, ecosocialists agree with ecofeminists that the oppression of women in our society is part and parcel of the system's domination of nature, reproduction in particular. This is done by the capitalist system co-opting the prevailing patriarchal practices, to extract extra surplus value from the workers, in terms of unpaid domestic labour, without which the system could not function. 

And all for free to the system.

Examples of modern day ecosocialism can found be found in the Kurdish area of northern Syria called Rojava and the Zapatistas in Chiapas the most southern state in Mexico.

So, what are the component parts of ecosocialism? There are many, but I’ve selected four of the main ones:

Metabolic Rift    

Nature contains billions of ecosystems, all connected in a finely balanced way, to form what we might call the ‘ecosphere’. Capitalism, disrupts and eventually completely ruptures this balance, setting off chain reactions which cannot be cured easily. Human beings are ecosystems too, and the way the system forces us to live, causes a rupture between us and nature and leads to illnesses like stress, depression and obesity.

And to those who say the ways of capitalism are ‘human nature’, then if this is true, why have we only been living this way for a couple of hundred years? The only thing natural about capitalism, is that it was invented by creatures of nature, us. And we can just as easily un-invent it – and we should.

Ecosocialist writer James Bellamy Foster has managed to link this to Karl Marx’s notion of an ‘irreparable rift’ between humans and nature, in volume three of Capital.

The Commons

Historically, in Britain and other western nations, people were forcibly removed from common land as it was enclosed, with violence employed, to drive the people off the land and into the capitalist factories in the towns and cities. And today the same thing is happening in developing countries. By taking away peoples alternative way of providing for themselves, they are left with no choice but to move into cities and work often 16 hours a day for meagre pay in factories, where health and safety is non-existent, and female workers are routinely harassed and molested.

When I visited Senegal in west Africa a few years ago, one day I spoke with some fishermen who complained about the factory ships from the European Union, Russia and Japan that were hoovering up all of the fish, so much so, that the local fisherman couldn’t catch enough fish anymore to earn a decent living. Here was a system of managed commons which had fed local people for thousands of years and provided a livelihood for the fishermen, destroyed by the capitalist factory boats. Robbing from the poor - to give to the rich.

You have probably heard of the ‘global commons’ on the internet, peer to peer sharing and free software, which ecosocialists welcome, with the possibilities it provides for living outside of the capitalist system, to some extent anyway.

Ecocentric Production

This is a quote from my favourite ecosocialist writer Jovel Kovel describing our vision of ecosocialism: ‘a society in which production is carried out by freely associated labour, and by consciously ecocentric means and ends’.

I think this sentence covers the production process under ecosocialism neatly. The ‘freely associated labour’ bit refers to the absence of surplus value, profit for capital.

Production would be for ‘use-value’, not ‘exchange value'. It will require useful work only, doctors, nurses, teachers etc. and there will be no need for work such as pushing numbers around on a computer in a bank in the City of London, which is useless to humanity - and indeed harmful.

What is produced will be of the highest quality, and beauty, and made to last and be repairable. My laptop packed up last week and I put it in for repair. But they couldn’t fix it because they couldn’t get the replacement part – this laptop is only a little over a year old, but it is obsolete. Throw it away, and get another was the advice.

In Green Party circles you hear a lot about sustainability, or sustainable production, but we ecosocialists prefer the word sufficiency, or sufficient production. Only as much as is needed will be produced, and no more. It should go without saying that the production process will be in balance with nature too.

Radical Democracy

Democracy in an ecosocialist society will devolve all decisions down to the lowest possible level. A series of assemblies, local, town, regional and at least at first, national. The assemblies will be freely elected and each assembly will be subject to recall from the level below, and assembly members should serve only one term. Eventually, the state will be dissolved.

All of this must seem like a million miles away – and it is. But now is not the same thing as the future. The ecological crisis will get worse, if we carry on like we are, and will present opportunities where radical solutions are sought. We must be ready to seize these opportunities.

And where does this all leave the Green Party? Well, interestingly The Guardian newspaper, during last year’s general election campaign, twice, once by one of its columnists and once in an editorial, described the Green Party as ecosocialist.

I think what was meant by this, was concern for the environment and advocating things like nationalising the railways and energy companies – all of which is to the good, but it is not really ecosocialism. 

The Green Party seems to have some hazy notions which are heading in the right direction, but for some reason, fails to follow through this thinking to its logical end – ecosocialism.

We in Green Left, try to push it along a bit, so that the Green Party fulfils its radical agenda, which logically means parting company with capitalism and championing ecosocialism.