The Judgment in the case of Shahrar Ali versus the Green Party

The legal case Shahrar Ali, former deputy leader of the Green Party and previously Green Party candidate for Brent Central, brought against the Green Party resulted in a judgment today. In papers submitted to the court, lawyers acting for Dr Ali claim that officials in the Green Party "collaborated" to remove him from his post  as spokesperson on policing and public safety because of his beliefs about gender, which include the view that "biology is real and immutable". 

The judgment found that Shahrar Ali was discriminated against procedurally in an unfair way because of his protected beliefs but did not find in his favour in other aspects of the case. He was awarded £9,100 in damages. Costs will be decided later.

 

Outside the court Ali said:

 

I see this as my gift to the Green Part y and wider politics, particularly in the left, where there has been an extraordinary toxicity preventing us from speaking freely.

 

Parties are not beyond the law when it comes to seeking to discipline their representatives in accordance with their own rules for alleged misconduct

 

He called for the  Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the Green Party over how it handles trans rights debates.

 

The Chair of the Green Party executive, Jon Nott, said: 

 

We are pleased that the court has recognised that a democratic political party has the right to select those who speak for it on the basis that they can and will communicate and support party policy publicly.  

We welcome the findings in the judgment that members of political parties have ‘fundamental party rights’ which include the right to disagree, to advocate for and against policies and positions adopted or proposed in the party, and to organise for those who agree with them and against those who do not, and that the Equality Act is not intended to interfere with those rights. 

 

The party acknowledges that there were procedural shortfalls in how we deselected one of our spokespeople. We apologise for failing in this instance to live up to the standards that both we and the court expect.

 

 Both sides of the case claimed to have won aspects of the case. I can't post the 61 page judgment for space reasons but here are their statements.

 

didlaw who acted for Shahrar Ali said:

 

didlaw is delighted to announce the successful judgment for its client Dr Shahrar Ali in his discrimination claims against the Green Party of England & Wales. 

 

Dr Ali pursued discrimination claims against the Green Party on the basis that he was subjected to a co-ordinated campaign by the Party to see him removed as a Party spokesperson, because of his gender critical beliefs. These beliefs, that sex is real and immutable are protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. 

 

It was Dr Ali’s case that when the Party Executive Committee failed to secure enough votes to remove him as Spokesperson at a meeting in June 2021, a new process was devised so as to ensure he was removed. In October 2021, a newly formed Spokesperson Support and Monitoring Group asked Dr Ali to address concerns about ‘trans rights’. Unbeknown to Dr Ali, one of the Group’s key aims was to censure him. 

 

On 5 February 2022 a majority of the Party’s Executive voted to remove Dr Ali from his Spokesperson role. The Party did not formally inform him of the removal and nor was he provided with any specific reason for the removal save for a public announcement made on Twitter which alleged that he had breached the Spokespeople Code of Conduct. 

 

In a 61-page judgment HHJ Hellman clearly describes the treatment of Dr Ali’s case and upholds his claim that the Green Party Executive Committee, by removing Dr Ali from his role of Spokesperson in a procedurally unfair way, ‘discriminated against Dr Ali because of his protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act.’ 

The judgment concludes ‘I have upheld in part Dr Ali’s claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against’ and states ‘Dr Ali also seeks a declaration that he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination. I grant the declaration sought, although it does not obviate the need for damages.’ In addition to a declaration of unlawful discrimination Dr Ali has also been awarded £9,100 as an award for injury to feelings. 

 

This is a landmark case and the first protected belief case against a political party. It is also the first case in which the court has had to consider the protection of those with gender critical beliefs in a political party. The key factor for consideration in any protected belief case is the balance between the reasonable manifestation of a belief and the limitations imposed by Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR in the context in which those beliefs are expressed. This is a tricky balancing act. One thing is clear, the Equality Act 2010 and the obligation to protect members from discrimination applies to all political parties. 

 

Bates Well who acted for the Green Party said:

 

The County Court has given judgment in the case of Ali v representatives of the Green Party of England and Wales. In doing so, it has set out novel and timely principles on the interaction between the prohibition on discrimination by associations in the Equality Act 2010 and the fundamental rights of members of political parties under the European Convention on Human Rights, in a decision which will be of great interest to political parties and campaigners of all kinds.

 

Giving judgment, HHJ Hellman agreed with the Claimant on one matter: that his removal had been procedurally unfair, and that he could not rule out the possibility (which had been the Party’s to disprove) that this procedural unfairness had been due to the Claimant’s protected beliefs. To that limited extent, the Claimant had been discriminated against. He was awarded £9,100 for injury to feelings. However, HHJ Hellman was careful to specify that it is explicitly not discriminatory for a political party merely to remove a spokesperson on the grounds of (in this case, gender critical) belief, provided it follows a fair procedure in doing so. He stated “The Green Party could not, in any event, have been compelled to maintain Dr Ali as a spokesperson if (outside of a party election period) he expressed beliefs that were inconsistent with Party policy, or if they reasonably concluded that he would do so, as this would infringe their article 9(1) rights by obliging them to manifest a belief which they did not hold” (243).

 

The reason for this finding concerned the interaction between the EqA and the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the ECHR into domestic law. HHJ Hellman considered the meaning of three articles of the ECHR: Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Taken together, he held that these Articles guarantee (amongst other things) the rights of members of political parties to:

• advocate for or against policies and positions adopted or proposed to be adopted by their party;
• criticise the beliefs or conduct of other members which are inconsistent with the policies and positions they advocate, including using language which their opponents might find offensive; and
• advocate and organise within the party in support of members who support their favoured policies and positions and against members who do not.  
  

 

Importantly, HHJ Hellman held that these rights, which he termed “fundamental party rights”, are so core to democratic society that Parliament cannot have intended to restrict them under the prohibition in the EqA against discrimination by associations. Section 101 of the EqA, which contains the prohibition on discriminatory “detriment”, must therefore be construed to exclude the exercise of those rights, as any curtailment of these rights pursuant to s.101 could not be justified in accordance with Higgs [see 207]. Several of the claims made by the Claimant were dismissed on this ground.

 

The remainder of the Claimants’ complaints were also dismissed in their entirety. Some of them were made out of time, and concerned events so clearly separate from the later events complained of that they could not constitute a ‘single act’. Others related to the Party’s local branches, separate organisations within the Party such as the Young Greens, or candidates in internal Party elections; the Claimant failed to establish that those named had been acting as agents of the Party.

 

Commentary

It is now beyond dispute that those with gender critical beliefs enjoy protection under the Equality Act. While those beliefs are protected, however, the issues with which they are concerned are a long way from being uncontentious. Rather, they remain a matter of heated and ill-tempered political debate, not least within political parties themselves. This claim effectively asked the court to direct a political party as to how to conduct that debate. It is to be welcomed that the court would not do so.

 

The principles established in this judgment mean that political parties remain free to debate these and other issues, even in terms which might be considered offensive. If this debate rubs up against protected beliefs, then so be it: some degree of discrimination on the grounds of belief is part of the essence of democratic politics; indeed, as HHJ Hellman observed, every five years voters perpetrate “an act of mass direct discrimination against other persons on grounds of the protected characteristic of belief” simply by voting in a general election.

 

Where key role-holders are being appointed or removed, parties should bear in mind the court’s warning that it will not infringe the fundamental party rights to hold them to requirements of procedural fairness. Provided those requirements are met, however, the field of political debate remains an area into which the courts will not easily be led.

 

 

Green Party leadership candidates on ecosocialism

On-line voting opened today in elections for the Green Party leaders and executive. Green Left asked candidates about ecosocialism. 

What do you understand by the term “Ecosocialist”? ‘Would you see yourself as being an ecosocialist and what does that mean to you?

LEADER CANDIDATES

Shahrar Ali

Green socialists, and I count myself as one, frame and explain policies in terms of their impact on social justice and environmental well-being. Climate justice would put an end to those least responsible for the climate change impacts having to most suffer their horrendous consequences. See my Ted Talk https://bit.ly/2NVbi6J.

Sian Berry (Joint candidate with Bartley)

I joined the Greens in 2001 precisely because we were the only party making the links between social justice and the need for a healthy planet, while all the other parties saw these as either/or. This link is at the core of ecosocialism, while I also admire the focus of most ecosocialists on local empowerment and action that builds resilience within communities as well as ‘traditional’ socialist principles like democratic public control of essential services and industries.

Jonathan Bartley (joint candidate with Berry)

I don’t see how the need to tackle climate change and the ravaging of the planet can be separated from the economic system that drives it and the rampant inequality that results. For me this is what being an ecosocialist is about and right now is the moment to be shouting loudly about it. People need more than a choice between Monetarism and Keynesianism. What Labour is offering is neither radical nor ecosocialist. What we offer should be clearly different and mean systemic change.

Leslie Rowe

Ecosocialism is Green socialism. Capitalism is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalisation and imperialism, under repressive states and transnational structures, such as the EU. That is why I am campaigning for a sustainable de-growth economic policy and actively oppose neo-liberal economic policies.

DEPUITY LEADER CANDIDATES

Aimee Challenor

For me, Ecosocialist is someone who supports people and planet through challenging big business and capitalism, making sure that we can live Free and Equal whilst also having a planet to live on.

Jonathan Chilvers

My understanding: The problems of environmental degradation and poverty having the common root cause of an exploitative capitalist system. My comment: I identify more strongly with the cooperative socialism of the earliest 20thC rather than the top down models that have come to be synonymous with the word ‘socialist’. Marx still offers the most devastating critique we have of capitalism, but he’s not that helpful for the Green Party in setting out a realistic, relevant and radical programme for how we move towards an economics for a finite planet.

Andrew Cooper

Ecosocialism is a vision of a transformed society in harmony with nature, and the development of practices that can attain it. It is directed toward alternatives to all socially and ecologically destructive systems, such as patriarchy, racism, homophobia and the fossil-fuel based economy. 

I’ve never called myself an ‘Ecosocialist’ though in conversation with people who do we come to similar conclusions on many occasions

Rashid Nix

I don’t like jargon. Avoid it like the plague. I am a Green Party spokesperson who talks the language of everyday people. We must develop language that includes not excludes. Ecosocialist is more exclusive language we should avoid. Mankind is in trouble, we need Simple Solutions a 10 year old understands.

Amelia Womack

I am a proud ecosocialist, which has been evidenced by my work opposing austerity and championing green alternatives that have social justice at their core. We need to be championing eco-socialist policies not just in the UK, but on a global basis, working to dismantle capitalism and challenging globalisation from the perspective that it’s built on the backs of the working class around the works, destroying our planet, and the effects of all this feedback with climate change and ecological destruction destroying the poorest countries and communities first.

Greens: 'Let's hear May calling this latest terrorist atrocity for what it is'

The Green Party has responded to the suspected terrorist incident in north London
Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader, said:

My thoughts and prayers go to every person directly affected by this attack and to Muslim communities right across the country. Once again our amazing emergency services appear to have responded with diligence and deserve our gratitude for their life saving action.

This was an attack directed at Muslims but it was also an attack on all of us. In the past month, the people of this country have shown enormous resilience and unity in response to some truly horrific events and it is that unity and togetherness that will make us stronger as we face down these threats.

This attack plays into the hands of terrorists and threatens to exacerbate a downward spiral of even greater violence. The prime minister must avoid knee-jerk responses that might appear tough on paper but end up handing terrorists a victory they crave: a curtailment of our freedoms.

Dr Shahrar Ali, Green Party home affairs spokesperson, said:

We are appalled and shocked by the heinous and barbaric terrorist attack on unwitting Muslims in the early hours of today outside Finsbury Park mosque. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected and their families, no less in the month of Ramadan.

Now as ever a strong, zero tolerance approach must be adopted towards rising hate crime directed at Muslims and all faith communities. The Islamophobic intent of the striker of terror today needs to brought out into the open not minimised or covered up.

I shall continue to call out double standards amongst our media reports and politicians' half-baked statements when I see them. These biases only risk to exacerbate the problem and add to injury by fuelling resentment amongst minorities affected that they aren't being treated equally. Let's hear from Theresa May calling this latest terrorist atrocity for what it is.

West London stands up to racism - Tuesday 28th February

From West London Stand Up to Racism

West London Stand Up to Racism have organised a Public Meeting in Ealing on Tuesday 28 February at 7.30pm with a fantastic line up of speakers.

We have a stall at this meeting.

PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY, 7.30pm

WEST LONDON STANDS UP TO RACISM

Speakers:

Rupa Huq, MP for Ealing Central and Acton

Sabby Dhalu, Co-convenor Stand Up to Racism

Mohammed Kozbar, Vice President Muslim Association of Britain

David Rosenberg, Jewish Socialist Group

Dr Shahrar Ali, Home Affairs Spokesperson, Green Party

Venue:
Ealing Town Hall (Liz Cantell Hall), New Broadway, W5 2HL

Greens: Cressida Dick appointment will erode trust between communities and police

The Green Party has criticised the appointment of Cressida Dick as the next Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Shahrar Ali, Green Party Home Affairs spokesperson, said:

The appointment of the new commissioner by Amber Rudd is an insult to the memory of de Jean Charles de Menezes and adds further injury to the still grieving family.

It’s vital that the officer heading up the Met is trusted by Londoners – and we’re deeply concerned that Cressida Dick’s role in the shooting of De Menezes will further erode trust between local communities and the police.

Far from exonerating her the IPCC report of 2007 criticised her actions in failing to clarify the meaning of her STOP order to armed police. Dick will struggle to command the confidence of the citizens she would serve whilst the campaign for her accountability remains unaddressed.

Sian Berry, Green London Assembly member, said:

This is a very controversial choice. Assembly members will want questions answered about the lessons the new Commissioner learned after the Jean Charles De Menezes shooting.

This was the most serious and shocking single mistake the Met has made in the last 20 years. For the Mayor to appoint the officer in charge on that day to run the whole of the Met when community cohesion is his priority for London does potentially put this at risk.

Londoners must have complete confidence in their police force and its leaders – I will be questioning the Mayor about this appointment.

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.

A homogeneous Green Party leadership?

The possible new Green Party leadership trio

The results of the Green Party leadership will be announced at the Green Party Conference in Birmingham today and I am 99% sure that Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley will be crowned as the new co-leaders of the party.

Party rules mean that there will therefore be only one deputy leader.  In many ways the deputy leadership contest was more interesting than the leader contest with a wider field of candidates in terms of ethnicity and class.

The front runners for deputy are the incumbents Amelia Womack and Shahrar Ali. Womack rose up through the Young Greens and Ali was the first BME deputy leader of a British political party.

Only one can become deputy if Lucas-Bartley wins the leadership as Womack pointed out at the Cardiff hustings:

'I also see, as many of you might realise, if job share wins the leadership there will only be one deputy leader. And I'd like to see the money that goes for two deputy leaders at the moment - if that does happen then that money goes towards payment for the leader of Wales Green Party..'

Some observers see that as possibly inadvertently infringing party rules which forbid candidates from implying or promising 'in any statement to voters, including at hustings, that they will give any monies, goods or services to any part of the Party dependent on their election....' although, unless the vote is very close, numbers at the hustings were unlikely to be sufficient to affect the result.

On-line voting has been used for the leadership for the first time this year and it has increased turn-out significantly in a party with increased membership. My hunch, with on-line voting complemented by strong social media, particularly that of the Young Greens, is that Womack, widely seen as very capable and an excellent communicator, is likely to win the  deputy leadership.

It is right that 'capability' is a major factor when electing leaders but Lucas-Bartley-Womack does present a homogenous white middle-class profile at a time when the Green Party has been attacked for being less diverse than UKIP - a jibe with more than an element of truth.

To make an electoral breakthrough the Greens need to appeal to working class and BME voters. Our policies are relevant to both groups but the task has been to put those over to voters beyond our 'natural constituency'. This has been accomplished by some Green Party actvists, including deputy candidates such as Andrew Cooper and Shahrar Ali,  but the challenge remains.

There is another factor which relates to leadership style. Ali contributed a combatative approach to media interviews taking on some very difficult tasks such as the situation around the attacks on Stop the War.  His approach has come in for some criticism - 'coming out fighting' is not the Green Party style according to some- but it added a vital ingredient to the leadership mix that may now be missing.

Whatever the result later today it is clear that the membership, as well as the leadership, has a challenging task on its hands, particularly when Jeremy Corbyn is attracting many who previously voted for the Green Party.

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!

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.

Lucas: Chilcot proves Blair lied about reasons for going to war - Stop the War meeting tomorrow

Caroline Lucas the Green party MP, said today that the report is 'damning' and shows that Blair and colleagues 'lied' to the public about their reasons for going to war.

She said:

“Chilcot’s report is damning for Blair, his cabinet and all those MPs who voted to take this country into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Iraqis continue to pay the price for an invasion that took place long before other options for a peaceful resolution were explored. 

"This report confirms the series of serious failures that led to this disastrous war. We know for sure that Government Ministers, including Tony Blair, lied to the public about their reasons for going to war. He said he would support George Bush ‘whatever’ eight months before the war – and thousands of lives were lost because he stuck to that promise despite the evidence in front of him.

“This report confirms that Blair had indeed decided to back the Iraq war far earlier than he has previously admitted. His claim that it was a war solely to eradicate WMDs is now in tatters. Blair knew he would never have garnered enough support for regime change, so he lied to Parliament and the Public to invade Iraq.

“We can now see the consequences of this horrific war: many thousands of civilians dead, hundreds of British troops killed and injured and continued civil wars raging across the Middle East.

"Ultimately we should have never needed this report because MPs should have taken note of the clear evidence presented to them and voted against the war. There's no doubt that Tony Blair should take much of the responsibility for this disaster - but every MP who closed their ears and eyes to the facts and voted for the war should now publicly apologise.

"411 MPs walked through the lobbies to vote alongside Blair for the Iraq war - and both parties need to take responsibility for that. The Prime Minister is the only leader in Westminster to have voted for the war and he should apologise in full for doing so.

"Parliamentary and constitutional failures are a constant feature in this report. The relevent checks and balances were not in place and we need to urgently explore how we can better hold the executive to account in this country. 

"Moving forward from today it's crucial that we learn lessons. That's why I'm demanding that the Prime Minister today joins me in calling for all future votes on military intervention to be unwhipped - so MPs use the facts and their conscience as their guide rather than threats from their party machinery."

Stop the War Coalition responded to the Chilcot Report with this statement:

The Chilcot report is a damning indictment of Tony Blair and those around him who took us to war in Iraq.

The report vindicates Stop the War and all we have been campaigning for over the years.  This report would not have happened without our campaigns and our ceaseless demands for Blair to be held to account.

It clear that Blair used lies and deception to get his way, that the war was unnecessary and illegal and that everything was done to ensure it went ahead.

The victims are the Iraqis, those soldiers who died and were injured, but also the whole political system traduced by this process.

The anti-war movement and the millions who marched were vindicated by this report and we now demand justice.

We welcome the fact that this report is so damning but for us this is not the end but the beginning. Meetings should be held in every town and city around the country. There must be legal sanctions against Tony Blair and he should no longer be considered fit for any office.

If you are in London, join us tomorrow (7 July) at the People's Response to Chilcot public rally at Mary Ward House at 7pm

Reacting to the publication of the Chilcot Report, Natalie Bennett, Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said:

“The Green Party believes the report’s final confirmation that the Iraq war was ‘not a last resort’ and that the British government decided to invade before all the peaceful options had been exhausted is a verdict that must produce action. We must not just say 'never again' but act to make that fact.

“That the judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were presented with a certainty that was not justified is simply inexcusable. Never again must the executive be able to lead us to war based on massaged information.

“And never again should MPs be told how to vote on such a critical matter. The Government should, immediately, announce that all future military interventions will have unwhipped votes in the House of Commons. We must never again see MPs being cajoled into voting along party lines when their conscience tells them otherwise. No MP should answer when asked why they voted for war 'I was told to.'

"Those MPs must be given genuinely independent legal advice about the legality of the action. They must know it is their responsibility to act legally, and that they could face sanction if they don't live up to it."

Speaking from Westminster, Shahrar Ali, Green Party Deputy Leader, said:

"The Green Party is resolutely committed to finding non-violent solutions to conflict situations and unequivocally opposed the war in 2003.

"The headline points of this mammoth report are chilling, yet unsurprising to all those who have been calling for Blair to be investigated at the International Criminal Court. 

"Whether on grounds of Blair's intent to bypass the UN, diplomacy not having been exhausted, or critical papers being denied to the Foreign Office, I support those renewed calls for a criminal investigation."