London Green Party's decision not to recommend a Mayoral second preference debated

George Galloway's battle bus was parked in Church Road today.  He could be heard bellowing to an empty street.

 Motion passed by London Fed, Monday 18 April

That the London Federation of Green Parties has great reservations about the policy positions on inequality, road building, airport expansion, and estate demolition of both so-called front runners for Mayor of London, and does not feel able to make a positive recommendation to Green voters in this election for a candidate who should receive their second preference vote for Mayor.

There have been a number of exchanges on Twitter regarding the London Federation of Green Parties decision not to recommend a second preference to voters in the London Mayoral vote. Here is the official statement following the decision:

The London Federation of Green Parties has announced that it cannot make a positive recommendation for either Sadiq Khan or Zac Goldsmith as an option for green voters‘ second preference in the election for Mayor.

Last month, the Party set out four ‘red lines’ on road building, airport expansion, estate demolition and inequality, against which they have now assessed the Labour and Conservative candidates’ policies and campaigning.

Neither candidate has provided guarantees against taking backward steps on air pollution and congestion by building new roads and expanding airports, and neither has made clear how they will take effective steps to stop the loss of thousands of council homes through estate demolitions.

No Mayor of London has ever won a majority vote on first preferences and in three of the four previous elections London Green Party decided to recommend its supporters back Ken Livingstone – as an Independent in 2000 and as the Labour candidate in 2008 and 2012 – as the best choice for the second preference votes of its supporters.

In a statement following its meeting last night, the Federation said:

Greens in London want positive change and a Green Mayor is the best way to deliver that. But Londoners will be able to give two candidates for Mayor their support, and to elect more Greens to the London Assembly.

The next Mayor could do a lot to tackle air pollution, housing and inequality, but he or she could also make the situation far worse. Unfortunately, neither Zac Goldsmith nor Sadiq Khan have ruled out major road building, which would create more congestion and pollution. Nor have they ruled out airport expansion which will make noise, pollution and climate change worse.

Despite their promises to act on London disastrous housing market, neither Sadiq Khan nor Zac Goldsmith are offering specific promises to reverse the proposed loss of 7,000 council homes from demolition schemes already in the planning pipeline. These backward steps are unacceptable.

Sian Berry, Green candidate for Mayor of London said:

The Greens have grown in strength and experience over 16 years and our policies stand alone as the best ideas for London in this election. We are the only party that will say no to big road building, airport expansion and forced estate demolition.

I know my supporters will have their own thoughts about who will get their second preference vote. But Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan have both failed to provide the guarantees that they will not make a bad situation worse in London either by increasing pollution with new roads and expanded airports or making the housing crisis even worse with the loss of thousands of council homes in estate demolitions.

I want Londoners to have clean air and a decent, affordable home. The only guarantee of that is a Green Mayor and a strong group of Green representatives on the London Assembly.

 End of statement

Readers may be interested to know that the previous decision to back Ken Livingstone was made after he accepted an invitation to meet with the London Federation and I remember the lively Q&A and subsequent discussion that took place before a decision to back him as our second preference was made.

I understand that Sadiq Khan has not responded to a similar invitation.

A YouGov poll for the Evening Standard today puts Sadiq Khan (Labour) on 31% and Zac Goldsmith on 20%. Khan's lead has increased from 7% in March to 11% now.   However 25% still 'don't know' and 8% do not intend to vote.

Sian Berry is supported by 6% ahead of Lib Dem Caroline Pidgeon on 5%. UKIP is marginally in front on 7% while George Galloway for Respect is 'hardly troubling the scorer.'

 The Standard says the poll suggests that the mayoralty will be decided on second preference votes

Once included, without 'don't knows' and 'would not vote', and weighted by likelihood to vote, the Labour contender is on 60% and Richmond Park MP 40%

I would be cautious about that in the light of recent failings by pollsters and with the 'doughnut' effect of voters in the outer London boroughs favouring the Tories (Brent and Harrow excluded).

There is a lively debate going on inside and outside the Green Party on the Federation's decision.  Here are some of the positions I have since the announcement of 'no second preference'.

People are capable of making up their own minds. It would be patronising for the Green Party to tell people how to vote.

The election of a Tory mayor would be a setback for ordinary Londoners. The Labour Party should see how important this is and talk to the Green Party to seek agreement on its 'Red Lines'

There is a big difference between a Khan and a Goldsmith victory and its impact on London and nationally, and on the current struggle between the Blairites and Corbynites in the Labour Party.

The Green Party decision will backfire as the Tory's racist campaign against Khan continues and intensifies.  We will be accused of not being serious about class politics and a progressive alliance.

The suffering imposed on Londoners by Labour councils implementing cuts, as instructed by Corbyn and McDonnell,  explains why they don't want a Labour Mayor either. Nobody said there is no difference between Goldsmith and Khan but it may be academic if you are a council tenant being socially cleansed by a Labour council.

A defeat for Khan will be seen as a defeat for Corbyn and will undermine any hopes of a progressive alliance to take on the Tories.

Only the Greens have the policies to make real change in London on these vital issues and a vote for a Green Mayor and Green Assembly Members is the only guarantee that such policies will be implemented.

The London Green Left blog on second preference can be found HERE

Brent Uncut (if only!) event on March 12th

At the Green Party Conference there was a discussion on whether we could work as part of a 'progressive alliance with the Labour Party. Opinions and experiences were mixed with some claiming that although Momentum had come out of the Corbyn leadership campaign it was little more than an election machine for the Labour Party who would back any Labour candidate, regardless of whether they supported anti-austerity or Corbyn, as a defeat would be seen as a blow for Corbyn.  I hope to post a video of the discussion later.

Meanwhile Brent Momentum has sent out the following invitation. Brent Momentum's event is called Brent Uncut, although of course Brent Labour Council has cut local services to the bone as a consequence of central government slashing local governnment finances. I  would be interested in any comments you wish to make.

What would Brent look like without austerity? Brent Momentum with Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback presents Brent Uncut: Fighting Austerity for a Better Borough. Come along for a day of workshops and discussions, with:

Shelly Asquith (National Union of Students), Melissa Benn (journalist, writer, campaigner), Dawn Butler MP,  Muhammed Butt (Leader, Brent Council) and Michael Pavey (Dep Leader, Brent Council).

Participate in workshops on: education, transport, health, energy/climate, housing, PREVENT, welfare/disability and culture.

Brent Uncut will be held from 10 - 4 pm on Saturday 12 March 2016 at  Neasden Methodist Church, Neasden Lane North, NW10 0AF.

Please sign up and share via Facebook.

You don't need to be an expert or have been to events like this before. Everybody has great ideas and contributions to make for how we can improve our local area. Come along and be part of the movement for a more democratic, equal and decent society.

In solidarity,

Team Momentum

Previewing the Green Party Autumn Conference

The Green Party will be assembling for their Autumn Conference in Bournemouth tomorrow at a time when we need  to  come to terms with the Corbyn victory and what it means for the left in general and the Green Party in particular.

In the above interview Caroline Lucas sets out Green Party's positive welcome for a socialist led Labour Party, although that is a long way from the Labour Party itself democratically adopting socialist policies.

One key quote is her response to a question on whether the Green Party itself is a socialist party:

"...Sometimes words like socialist can be more problematic than they are worth in a sense because  people will bring different baggage to what the term means for them. If you're asking is the Green Party fundamentally committee to the redistribution of wealth, to equality and social justice, absolutely 'Yes' it is and I don't think there's any difference between any of us on that."

She indicates that the main difference with Corbyn is that for the Greens these policies are seen through the lens of challenging climate change, the biggest challenge facing human-kind, so that issues such as the nature of an ever expanding consumer led capitalist economy contributing to the depletion of world resources and the acceleration of global warming are paramount.

She is positive about the potential for progressive alliances which is ironic because Green Left, the Eco-socialist grouping within the Labour Party were not successful in their bid for an official  Fringe Meeting on  'A principled or pragmatic progressive alliance?'

However GL are going ahead anyway and holding the meeting outside the conference venue at  The Goat & Tricycle 27-29 W Hill Rd, Bournemouth, Dorset BH2 5PF 8-11pm on Saturday night.

An issue discussed in Lucas' interview which will loom large at the Conference is the Green Party's position on the EU Referendum.  There will be a panel on EU Referendum: the Green 'Yes' at 1pm on Saturday which Lucas will chair.

Basically the party position is Yes to a referendum but Yes to reform. This position is now under strain, not just because Cameron's negotiations may result in dilution of the progressive aspects of the Social Chapter, but the searing experience of Greece in trying to challenge neoliberalism and austerity, TTIP and the failure of the EU to deal humanely and effectively with the refugee crisis.  This means that somew on the left and some trade unions are now leaning towards a socialist 'No' on the basis that the potential for reform is so much pie in the sky.

Later on Saturday at 6.15pm Caroline Lucas will chair a Panel on "Climate Countdown to Paris" which will discuss strategies and alliances to bring pressure on the December talks so that they are more ambitions both in terms of eventual impact on global warming and in terms of speeding up the response.

On Sunday afternoon at 2.30pm following the General Election result there will be a panel on 'How to get PR: What needs to happen to ensure there is never again a repeat of the unfairnessof the 2015 General Election?' The panel includes Neal Lawson of Compass and Robin McAlpine of the Scottish referendum campaign and chair of Common Weal.

Alongside this in the plenary sessions members will be actively engaged in making policy. Members have prioritised a motion on housing into the No.1 slot.

Will Corbyn end the 'dented shield' in local government?

Congratulations to local Labour Party activists who worked hard in the Corbyn campaign. As one of them remarked to me at the 'Refugees Welcome Here' demonstration yesterday 'this is only the beginning of the struggle.'

The Party's adherence to neoliberalism, the anti-Corbyn Parliamentary Labour Party, and the role of democracy within the party, including Party Conference, are just some of the areas where battles will need to be fought.

On social media today it is clear that some Greens have decided to throw in their lot with the Labour Party, and this includes a number who left Labour for the Greens when they thought Labour had 'lost its way'. However others have stated their intention to stay with the Greens on the basis that eco-socialism is a separate strand of political thinking in contrast to Corbynism which remains committed to 'productivism' LINK

Although this still leaves space for a 'progressive alliance' with the Labour Left on some issues there are problems on the ground with the positions adopted by Labour locally.

Most local councils are beginning their budget process this Autumn ready for April 2016.  Even Conservative council have said that they can no longer provide effective services with the planned cuts in funding.

Labour councils have adopted a 'dented shield position' up this point which means implementing the cuts rather than taking a principled stand against them and setting 'illegal' budgets. This was also true of the minority Green council in Brighton.  In the process services have been cut to the core and out-sourcing has become the norm with some handing over to the voluntary sector.

So how will 'dented shield' councils such as Brent adapt to the new leadership and will this mean that at last they make common cause with anti-austerity and trade union campaigners who have been challenging the cuts both in terms of their necessity and of the damage that they cause?

The May Labour NEC discussed local government issues and included this statement: LINK

Since May 2010 local government has had its funding dramatically cut. Many Councils have had their funding cut by 50% or more. This majority Conservative Government seeks to continue to cut Councils even further and puts vital public services at risk. These cuts are unsustainable and threaten services across the board, including in education, health, social care, fostering and adoption and community safety. We called on colleagues across the Labour movement to work together with Local Government to defend the vital public services our communities rely on. We look forward to working closely with Trade Unions, MPs and others to fight for a fairer deal for local government.

I think it is not just a fight for a 'fairer deal' for local government but for its very survival. In addition to the campaign  over funding there is also the need to preserve the role of local government in providing services with a public sector' ethos and purpose. This means challenging the privatisation of our education system that has taken place through academies and free schools, the out-sourcing of adult social care, children's services and youth provision.

Brent Council has eroded that ethos and undermined the role of democratically  accountable local government by accepting, and sometimes promulgating, the idea that services can be better provided by the private and voluntary sectors.

Only a few Brent Labour councillors nailed their colours to the Corbyn mast during the Labour election campaign and its leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, argued against his CLP backing Corbyn.

This leaves the Labour Group on Brent Council out of line with both the party nationally and locally. There should be some interesting discussions ahead.

Despite Corbyn the impossibility of tackling climate change within capitalism remains the key issue for eco-socialists

The old politics is crumbling, not just in Britain but across our continent. We now have the chance to embrace a movement based not on greed or fear, but on resilient local communities, people working together and a stable economy that works for generations to come. I truly hope you win the contest on 12 September – and I look forward to continuing to work with you to bring about the progressive politics that has inspired us both for so many years...

Caroline Lucas' open letter to Jeremy Corbyn published in the Independent LINK  has created a lot of discussion and comment, not all of it complimentary.

When members of the Labour Party have asked me to join the party I have often replied, only half-jokingly, 'I can't. I'm a socialist!'

Now it looks as if that is what the Labour Party itself is saying to some of those who have joined recently as a result of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign.

I haven't because I am committed to eco-socialism and a member of  Green Left. This is what we said in 2006:

 “Activists in the Green Party have founded Green Left because many Greens believe the only path to an ecological, economically and socially just and peaceful society has to be based on an anti-capitalist political agenda.”

You can read more about Green Left's political position HERE but for me a key issue is that climate change as a result of human activity is such a threat that we have to change that activity. We cannot continue expanding industrial production without limit as the processes involved will accelerate climate change and eventually threaten humankind and other species.

To change to a sustainable economy requires separating wants from needs, ending the artificial creation of demand through advertising,  stopping the plundering of the earth's finite resources, and creating an economic system based on cooperation rather than competition and exploitation.

This is the opposite of neoliberalism which monetises everything from education to water and has no regard for the damage it causes to people and planet.

Corbyn's campaign although sharing many of the Green Party's policies does not address this fundamental issue at the heart of the planetary crisis.  The Labour Party he will inherit as leader, if elected, is still committed to the neoliberal agenda, albeit a slightly softer version than the Tory one, and it will be a huge battle to change that commitment as the reaction of the Blairites, the bulk of the media, and the Establishment have shown.

The Labour leadership campaign has highlighted one issue for me regarding democratic policy making. All the candidates seem to be putting forward policies as individuals, reflecting the party's move away from the sovereignty of conference when members can put forward motions about vital issues and principles, debate and vote on them - it is now a top-down process.  The leadership campaign, rather like a General Election, gives rank and file members just one chance to vote on policy through choosing one of the candidates rather than a say in formulating policy.

The Green Party  still makes policy democratically at its two Conferences a year with a process that includes pre-agenda discussions, pre-conference prioritisation, conference workshops culminating a debate on the floor of the Conference. The leader has no more say in these debates than rank and file members.  The Autumn Conference will be after the winner of the Labour contest is announced and any alliances or pacts will be subject to Conference debate and decision making.

The process means that our leaders cannot make up major policy on the hoof without it first having been decided by the membership. This probably led to some of the difficulties experienced by Natalie Bennett during the General Election campaign when the media expected her to have the same freedom to make policy as other party leaders.

These differences in the process of policy making will present some difficulties if a Corbyn led Labour Party and the Greens set up some kind of 'progressive' alliance ('progressive' is a vague label claimed by many often conflicting groups - anti-austerity or socialist alliance may be better as a guide to action in this parliament).

The undemocratic structures of the Labour Party, the dominance of the far from radical Parliamentary Labour Party, the behind the scenes machinations of the Establishment and intelligence services (cf my previous article on Harold Wilson and my prediction of dirty tricks over Corbyn's support for Palestine LINK) and media hostility all lead me to fear that Andy Burnham will end up as Labour Party leader but, along with Caroline Lucas, I wish Corbyn well.

UPDATE Brent Labour MPs 2-1 against Welfare Reform Bill

Dawn Butler (Brent Central) and Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead & Kilburn) defied the Labour whip last night and joined 46 other Labour MPs in voting against the Welfare Reform Bill. Liberal Democrat MPs also voted against.

Tulip Siddiq had signalled her intention in a Channel 4 News interview earlier that evening.  Renowned local Tweeter Pukkah Punjabi revised her Storify posting in  the light of Siddiq's stance. LINK

As far as I know ultra loyalist Barry Gardiner (Brent North) obeyed the whip. Gardiner's one attempt at rebellion was against Gordon Brown and unfortunately was ill-timed - just a few days before Big G 'Saved the World' during the economic crisis.

UPDATE Barry Gardiner has told the KILBURN TIMES that Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler fell into a Government trap by voting against the Bill:

He explained: “Either we voted for the bill because we supported those of our policies that they’d incorporated into it but in so doing we voted for unacceptable changes to the benefits system such as three million families that are going to lose £1000 or impact on carers from the benefit cap. Or we voted against those regressive policies in the bill but in so doing voted against our own on apprenticeships.

“It was meant to trap us. It was a false choice designed to force us into either opposing our own policies or supporting the evil policies they were putting forward. I’ve always considered that if you’re asked to choose two unacceptable positions the sensible position is to refuse both. That is why I abstained."

The revolt perhaps gives some indication of the core support Jeremy Corbyn may command in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Labour Mayoral candidates Diane Abbot, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy also voted against the Bill.

Ahead of the vote Green MP, Caroline Lucas, said: 

“The Tories are attempting to dismantle our welfare state, and cut back on support given to those who need it the most.

“The bill will slash support for people with ill health including many with mental health problems – new claimants of Employment Support Allowance in the Work Related Activity Group, will see payments cut by almost £30 a week. This is very harmful for people with long-term fluctuating mental ill-health.  It will lock in child poverty for those born into larger families and it will leave Ministers significantly less accountable for their policies by scrapping the current legally binding child poverty targets.  

“It’s also deeply concerning that the bill includes a clause which would allow the Government to further lower the cap on benefits without properly consulting Parliament - thus potentially plunging more children into poverty without MPs even having a debate on the issue.

“It's now down to MPs from all parties to look beyond the politics of today’s debate and focus instead on the devastating impact that this piece of legislation will have on people up and down the country. 
"Our crumbling social security system is on the brink – now is the time to take a stand.

“George Osborne is playing politics with poverty. Failing to stand up to this regressive Welfare Bill would be an utter betrayal of the principle which says that those in need deserve support.  I’ll be joining many MPs from across the parties in voting against the Government’s Bill and making a stand for our welfare state.”

Lucas has spoken of the need for a 'Progressive Alliance' to challenge neoliberalism and austerity and yesterday's vote  gives some indication of the potential extent of that alliance in Parliament. 

Before the vote Owen Jones released a video making the case for voting against the Bill.

A Green's place is in the movements

The Green Party is committed to advance its cause through standing in elections but importantly its members are  also involved in many movements for environmental and social justice.

At General Election time the focus is inevitably on election campaigning and there is a danger that this takes away from other, broader campaigns.  In London with the Assembly and Mayoral elections happening next year we could end up continuing on the electoralist road and putting all our energy into getting Green Assembly members elected.

This is important but I would argue that with the Tory's forming a new administration that will renew the war on the poor and the vulnerable that our energy should also go into participating in and building the movements challenging neoliberal policy on  the welfare state, benefit caps, gentrification and social cleansing, reckless plundering of the world's natural resources, fracking, industrialised schooling and the demonisation of migrants.

The Green Party's  Philosophical Basis states:

We do not believe that there is only one way to change society, or that we have all the answers. We seek to be part of a wider green movement that works for these principles through a variety of means. We generally support those who use reasonable and non-violent forms of direct action to further just aims.

Our beliefs will bring us into conflict with those committed to material affluence, the accumulation of power and the unsustainable exploitation of the Earth. We are always ready to negotiate with those who oppose us, and seek fair settlements that respect their needs for security, self esteem and freedom of choice.

We will even work with those who disagree with us where sufficient common ground can be found to do so. However, we do not seek power at any price, and will withdraw our support if we are asked to make irreversible or fundamental compromises.

Yesterday's skirmishes in Downing Street protesting at the Conservative election victory presage a likely new wave of direct action in the face of five more years of austerity and cuts.  The issue of legitimacy of the new Government is clear when you consider that Tories won on 36.9% of the vote, when about a third of the electorate (15.8 m people out of an electorate of 46.4m) did not vote, and that the first past the post system meant hat it took many more voters to elect a minority party MP:

The equivalent figure for Conservative has been quoted at 34,000 and Labour 40,000.

The Green vote in 2010 was just 265,187 but the number of Green MPs remains only one. A proportional system would have give 30 Green MPs although the prospect of many more UKIP MPs is a major concern.  A petition for a fairer voting system has been set up HERE

In her speech yesterday Caroline Lucas MP set out her post-election ideas:

The election results have served as a stark reminder that our political system is broken. The time for electoral reform is long overdue. Only proportional representation will deliver a parliament that is truly legitimate, and that better reflects the views of the people it’s meant to represent.

But we must move forward today. While the campaign for electoral reform gathers momentum, those of us wanting to see a fairer, more compassionate and progressive politics must find new ways of working together, a new way to do politics – and put that into practice now. 

Unless we break free of tribal politics and work together to fight austerity, and promote crucial, common-sense climate policies, we’re faced with an incredibly bleak political future. For the sake of all those who’ll suffer most at the hands of the Tories, we must rethink our relations and recognise the importance of our common ground. 

That should include shared platforms and case-by-case electoral pacts, to build a strong progressive alliance to challenge the Tories over the next five years.  Clearly in Wales and Scotland, where there are PR elections for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, this doesn't apply, but where First Past the Post continues to distort election results, it should surely be considered.

And one of the first challenges such an alliance will face is ensuring we win the referendum on membership of the EU.

 While we certainly support urgent EU reform, we cannot allow backward-looking Tories to make common cause with UKIP and lead us out of the EU and into the wilderness.

This is all well and good but it sees things very much through traditional party politics, something that has been rejected by thousands of  activists and seen by many ordinary people as irrelevant to their day to day struggles.  A 'new way of doing politics' should mean the Greens participating much more in struggles on the ground, taking part in direct action (something Lucas was prepared to do over fracking') and most importantly learning from these struggles and feeding what has been learnt into Green Party policy and strategy.

Our position as an 'anti-austerity' party needs to be much more fully explored and explained. Although we said  that being anti-austerity was a different way of doing things and was based on a alternative economic model I think Greens failed to  explain what this would mean in real terms in the context of the media obsession with the deficit and national debt.  This made us vulnerable on the media and in local hustings to the cry of 'but where is the money coming from?' and led to our depiction as 'dreamers' and 'idealists' unrelated to the real world.

In short if we are 'anti-austerity' what are we 'pro'? Can we frame that 'pro' positively to convince people that a different economic system could work to their benefit?  Should there be a new name for the People's Assembly Against Austerity  - the People's Assembly FOR.....

Paul Krugman in his influential Guardian article on the 'austerity delusion' LINK expressed astonishment at UK Labour's buying into the delusion and this may well have contributed to Labour's failure in the election - 'if we are going to have austerity anyway, who not vote for the devil we know?'

Unfortunately the initial reaction to Labour's defeat seems to be an attempt by Blairites to reclaim the agenda and push Labour further right - exemplified by Peter Mandelson on the Marr Show this morning say that Miliband's ditching of 'New Labour' was a 'terrible mistake.' LINK

Mandelson's distancing from the trade unions and their role in the Labour Party gives an impetus to the Green Party's work with trade unions, not only encouraging everyone, and espcially young workers, to join unions but setting up direct links locally and nationally.


If Labour is re-captured by the Blairites it leaves space for creating a real alternative - not just through a political party but through a movement - and establishing a different way of doing politics through social and environmental movements.

UKIP's Martin Ferguson sinks without trace and his successor gets into hot water

Martin Ferguson

Martin Ferguson, who was UKIP's candidate for Brent North was mysteriously replaced at the last minute by Alan Craig. There are mutterings of a possible 'embarrassment' regarding Ferguson that has been allegedly hushed up by the party. It is unclear whether he remains a member of UKIP. Ferguson has not responded to my enquiries about the reasons for him stepping down and his party status. His image still appears on UKIP's official candidiates' page LINK

His successor, Alan Craig, has lost no time in making his mark. Pink News has exclusively revealed LINK that he is due to speak at a 'gay cure' event. He will join a panel on 'resisting indoctrination' alongside Christian anti-gay activists.

Scott Bartle, Craig's Green Party opponent said:

The only ‘conversion’ the Green Party is interested in is from a bigoted society, to one where we’ve put an end to discrimination of people due to their sexuality and protect non-binary rights.

Sadly (and ironically for UKIP) it is prejudiced attitudes of people such as Mr Craig that contribute towards people seeking asylum in the UK because of the criminalisation, discrimination and violence they experience in their own countries.

It’s time to end this culture of disbelief which has not only denied LGBTIQ people of their refugee status but resulted in needless deaths, including that of Leelah Alcorn.

Alan Craig

Craig, a former leader of  Christian People's Alliance has a history of opposition to gay marriage and called advocates of homosexual equality the 'Gaystapo'. He said LINK

Whatever you think of the issue itself, the gay marriage legislation last year was a democratic disgrace. Faithful one man/one woman marriage has been a defining and enduring bedrock of our society and culture – and the preeminent place of nurture for the nation’s children – for a millennium and a half.

Bob Blackman

His position is very similar to that of Bob Blackman, presently fighting to retain his Harrow East seat for the Conservatives. Blackman was denounced by his ex-mistress for 11 years, Cllr Carol Shaw (Conservative, Brondesbury Park) after he spoke about the sanctity of marriage in parliament.

Blackman said:

If this (gay marriage) went ahead it would be difficult to promote Christian values in parliament. I also make a point to promote religious values in my constituency.

Marriage is for man and woman, and for same-sex couples there is a legal partnership. It certainly angers religious groups and constituents, many of whom have contacted me

Luke Parker, the Conservative candidate for Brent North, is rather more progressive. Responding to Pink News LINK over Alan Craig's speaking engagement he said:

I don’t actually think it’s funny… this is a very serious and growing party, and they’ve transgressed into a party of hate.

UKIP selection policy seems to be based on finding people who can get as many other people as possible angry about who they want to hate this week.

He went on:

I wonder if there’s aversion therapy that can stop you being a bigot. If there is, maybe we can set it up so every time someone looks at a UKIP leaflet, they get an electric shock.”

Red Pepper on 'How red are the Greens?'

The latest Red Pepper, delivered today, has How red are the Greens? as its cover story with additional articles inside. It is edited by Michael Calderbank who is a member of the LRC and a local Brent activist with whom I have campaigned on various local issues.

The cover story by Andrew Dolan is fairly friendly and attributes a drop in Labour support on the left and the support of the young  'in part a consequence of the Green Party's opposition to the austerity politics that Labour has committed itself to. The Green's policies of rail nationalisation, social housing construction, a rise in the minimum wage and free education represent an attractive alternative to a demographic traditionally located on the left and more likely to express dissatisfaction with neoliberalism and austerity than those already entrenched within labour and property markets.'

However he quotes research by James Dennison that on specific economic policy issues those planning on voting Green in fact tend to be less left wing that Labour voters. 'What clearly separates likely Green voters from those of other parties, UKIP aside, is that a far higher proportion express a lack of trust in MPs in particular and UK democracy in general.'

He goes on, 'Accompanying the Green's leftward policy shift has been a new rhetoric comparable to that deployed across Europe. Talk of "the people" , of "us versus them" and even of "revolt" is now commonplace In Green Party publications and speeches and carries some legitimacy when considered in relation to the party's well-publicised support for various grassroots struggles and the involvement of the Scottish Greens in the Radical Independence Campaign'.'

After examining the prospects of the Greens winning more seats and holding on to Brighton Pavilion (according to him not terribly good) he says on tactical voting 'A newly emboldened Green party has little interest in such tactical anti-Tory consideration. Rather its eyes are fixed on the opportunities that may arise should '"politics as usual" and the austerity it entails continue. The party's recent talks with thee SNP and Plaid Cymru, and their stated intention to "unite wherever possible to battle the Westminster parties' "obsession with austerity", hint at the possibility of a changed political landscape: one in which the idea of the "other parties" including the Green Party, transforming growing popularity into power is more than just a pipedream.'

Joseph Healy, billed as a founder member of Green Left and ex GP International committee, writes a pessimistic article suggesting that the Greens chances of not disappointing their supporters if the get into any government are 'not good' based on what happened in Ireland, Czech Republic and France.

Hilary Wainwright in Out of their seats writes 'Caroline Lucas is perhaps currently the one (MP) able to speak most openly and clearly about what is on voters' minds: austerity and is daily consequences, and what is needed is parliamentary terms to end it.'  Quoting Lucas saying that a progressive alliance could do more in the next parliament Wainright goes on: 'Although the 'we' might in parliamentary voting terms be only one MP, in Lucas the Greens have had a real political force in parliament - a force driven not only by her personal capacities, which are immense' but also by a political methodology that could well be adopted by the progressive alliance as a whole. Lucas's effective parliamentary initiatives against fracking and the energy companies, for public ownership of the rail system and for reinstating the NHS have been the result of immersion in extra-parliamentary campaigns and public debates..A bit like Tony Benn, she thereby giver further confidence and strength to the movements in society and their ability to shift public consciousness with a clear and persuasive political message.'

Reviewing Caroline Lucas's recently Published Honourable Friends? Parliament and the Fight for Change, Ian Sinclair having praised the book as 'an absolute joy to read - accessible, fast paced and entertaining - and often funny too'  concludes..'Cogent, rational and humane Honourable Friends? confirms why it is essential all progressives work to make sure Lucas continues as an MP.

Greens should support national campaign for education

I have long argued on this blog that because of the broad and fundamental attack on education by Michael Gove and the Coalition that we need a national campaign which both exposes that policy and proposes an alternative.

I hope that the Green Party will be part of the campaign given that we have progressive policies on education which I hope will be strengthened at Spring Conference.

Towards a National Campaign for Education has been formed to promote such a campaign and they have organised a meeting on January 22nd to which they invited the London Green Party. I will be attending and I hope other Greens will come too.

You can order free tickets for this event and a similar one due to take place in Brixton on February 27th HERE

You can Tweet questions with #eqtime @NCE2014

The Campaign has its aims on its blog: LINK:

This blog is aimed at anyone who uses, works or is just interested in our education system. It has two main purposes.

The first is to expose the faultlines in the 'neo-liberal' education reform movement and in particular to target the weaknesses, errors and political ideology in Gove's education policies.

The second is to develop a discussion that hopefully leads towards building a National Campaign for Education. There are many excellent education campaigns in the UK (see our Links page). There are also several different unions representing teachers and support staff. There are governor and parent organisations and a raft of specialist organisations dealing with subjects or specific areas such as SEN. This creates a complex network of organisations and individuals. The danger is that their work is duplicated and their impact is dissipated.

For some time now, people have been arguing that we need a National Campaign for Education (NCE). The NUT and UNISON unions have conference policy calling for the creation of such a campaign. At its last National Steering Committee the Anti Academies Alliance agreed to work towards creating an NCE by engaging in wider discussion and debate, hence this blog.

The argument is fairly simple. Gove's attacks on education cover almost every aspect of education. It is not just about academies and free schools. It reaches in to the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. It also affects the provision of school places and teacher education. It is about when and why our children are educated. On all these issues, the Coalition government have launched an all out attack. The breadth of their attacks require a coordinated and sustained response.

The idea for an NCE is modelled on the 1963 National Campaign for Education. This was an unprecedented education campaign that helped change the education landscape in the early 1960's. More on the history of the 1963 NCE will follow. But we want to make 2014 a year for education, a year of a National Campaign for Education.

For now this blog, will carry articles on a range of education issues with a view to engaging in a debate about how to defend education but, more importantly, about what sort of education system we want, about what sort of system is in the best interests of all our children.

This blog is not about replacing other campaigns. But it will argue more 'synchronicity' between different campaigns. Together we can build a campaign that halts the attacks and outlines the sort of education system that provides a good local school for every child.

The Need for a National Campaign for Education

Writing on Wembley Matters I have repeatedly criticised Michael Gove's neoliberal reforms in education, the privatisation agenda represented by academies and free schools, and the way the emphasis on test results and league tables narrows the very concept of education and deprives children of their childhood.

The Anti-Academies Alliance has recognised the may strands of this battle and I fully support their support for a National Campaign for Education.

In this report Alasdair Smith, National Secretary  of the Anti Academies Alliance, outlines the issues and notes in passing the Green Party's opposition to the neoliberal vision.

Rumour has it that policy wonks in the DfE are hard at work on how to manage “market failures”.

Indeed the number of failing academies is soaring.  But then ‘failure’ is hardwired into a system of rationed exam success, the ever-changing goalpost of OFSTED and unbridled greed of ‘social entrepreneurs’ who now claim they have a special responsibility to transform education. Peter Hyman – pass the sick bucket please.

The wheels of big business intervention are in full motion.  I have looked, to no avail, to find figures on the increase in rate of investment by education businesses over the last 10 years. My guess it is huge. Rupert Murdoch’s re-branded edu-business – Amplify (www.amplify.com ) is clearly backed by huge investment.  Not surprisingly alongside big money, comes a whiff of corruption - nepotism, dishonesty and manipulation swirls around the system – with exam cheating, pilfering public money and appointing family members now part of Gove’s dystopian nightmare.

Revelations that several academies have adopted Section 28 style policy outlawing 'promotion of homosexuality’ come as no surprise. Deregulation and privatisation - what Gove calls 'autonomy' - can be a licence for bigotry. The outcry raised by the British Humanist Association report has forced the government into a review but we will need hard proof that no school has Section 28 style clauses in future.

The scandal of free schools is even worrying the likes of Graham Stuart – the Tory chair of Education Select Committee. The huge costs, obvious lack of value for money and, most disgracefully, the fact that free schools are opening in areas where there is no need for places is causing huge concern.

There is a ticking time bomb over the shortage of school places. Some parts of London now have several 5 form entry primary schools and are considering split shift education provision unless funding is dramatically increased.

Of course Gove will point to the odd ‘success’ in his new world order. But does he ask about the failures? And what will he do about them?

Is resistance to academy conversion futile?

The academy conversion process is now so clinical, so undemocratic and so dishonest that local campaigns rise and fall within weeks. Schools are handed to sponsors on a plate by DfE brokers. As John Harris argued in the Guardian last week there is murky relationship between OFSTED and academisation ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/ofsted-lashing-out-against-primary-schools )

This means there is little chance to build sustained campaign as happened at Downhills. Yet parents are still willing to fight. Neither Gove nor academy conversion is popular. Gove is hated by the profession. There is a profound sense that our communities are being bullied into conversion.

People understand that this policy is the same as policy as the privatising of the NHS. But unfortunately the patterns of resistance are similar to NHS too, although the sporadic protests tend to be even smaller.

One reason for the absence of serious resistance is that Stephen Twigg’s criticism of Gove’s policies has been too muted. Other Labour politicians have offered more - for example Andy Burnham's trenchant defence of comprehensive education. In some areas Labour MPs have worked hard to stem the tide and build alliances with parents and the profession.  But the few national policy announcement’s seems to be little more than ‘Gove lite’.

Elsewhere the Westminster village is in thrall to Gove. We should not believe for one minute that the Lib Dems are holding back Gove. David Laws has been central to propping up elements of Gove’s agenda such as Schools Direct and privatisation of teacher training.

Apart from the Green Party, a few principled MPs and a handful of commentators, the political class remain wholly committed to this neoliberal vision, or what Finnish educationalist Pasi Salhberg calls GERM – Global Education Reform Movement.

It means we need to think long and hard about our approach to education reform. There have been some bold initiatives. CASE, SEA and others have created Picking up the Pieces. This has identified some key features of what a good education system would look like.  The NUT and Compass have joined together to run an enquiry into future of education. Both initiatives appear to be focused on persuading Labour to change its policy going into the next election.

The viability of that strategy is a matter of some debate. In contrast the AAA has continued to try to mobilise parents and staff in campaign at school level, but with limited success. But it has also argued that we need something more. We need a new vision for education that stimulates a nationwide debate and action on achieving it.

The terrain has changed. We are not fighting a single battle against academies, but a ‘war’ in several different areas of education: curriculum, school places, primary, pre-school, teacher training and so on. The scale and breadth of attacks is unprecedented.

If the terrain changes, the vehicle has to change

From the outset we argued that the academies programme was a ‘Trojan horse’ to help break up state education as part of a much grander design to deregulate and privatise the whole system. That prediction is now becoming a reality. But just opposing academies and free schools does not always offer the best opportunities to fight back against Gove. Increasingly much of the secondary sector is now conditioned to academy status. And although academisation is new to the primary sector, it remains rare that single schools fighting alone stop conversion.

Our arguments about the real nature of the academies programme have stood the test of time, but our ability to halt it remains limited. So for the last couple of years the AAA has argued for a National Campaign for Education (NCE) to unite campaigns to create a greater sense of common purpose and above all to articulate ideas around what sort of education system we want not just what we are against.

There are many other areas of education policy on which Gove is more vulnerable. New campaigns are emerging all the time. The multiplicity of different campaigns working on different projects and timescales continue. Avoiding this sort of duplication of effort is a good argument for an NCE. But here is also another more compelling argument. The historic agreement between the NUT and NASUWT for joint programme of action that began on 27th June and will continue on 1^st and 17^th October offers new hope of resistance across the profession.

Whatever the success of the joint action there remains a job to be done for an NCE. It needs to keep alive ideas of what it means to have a comprehensive, progressive and democratic education system. It needs to engage in popularising a wholly different vision of education based on key ideas of the Finnish system - equality & ‘less is more’. But crucially this shared theoretical vision needs some genuine prospect of realisation for it to have any meaning. So the NCE needs to have a campaigning edge. It needs to take the debate on the future of education into schools and communities up and down the country.

As was reported at the AGM in March, progress towards an NCE has been slow. Support for it was agreed at NUT and UNISON conferences and a few practical steps have been taken.

The AAA is committed to working towards an NCE, but there remains plenty of work for us to do. Our primary function of supporting local campaign continues.
 

Green activists declare support for Brighton Cityclean workers

The GMB Cityclean picket line this morning

The Green Party has rightly been subject to close scrutiny over the performance of its first Green led (though minority) council in Brighton and Hove. The party has been hampered by an unholy alliance opposition of Labour and Conservative councillors but nonetheless has been able to implement some progressive policies. Its decision to stay in office and implement Coalition cuts has been controversial to say the least and one that I do not support, but some problems have been of its own making, through inexperience or poor decision making.

This is the case with the Cityclean dispute and I support the position put below in an Open Letter by a group of Green councillors and activists in the city:

As concerned Green Party activists, Councillors and trade unionists we feel we have no option other than to write this letter. This is our response to the news that the Council’s Cityclean workforce intend to take industrial action following the collapse of negotiations relating to proposed changes to their pay and allowances.

We are appalled that the situation has escalated to the point where Council employees are forced to take strike action in order to be heard. We are concerned that as activists from a party which has spent years arguing for workers’ rights that on this occasion the argument is wrong.

We continue to oppose the imposition of pay cuts as per the decision of our Emergency General Meeting in May. Further we will show solidarity with the workers affected by this decision.

We are Green Party members because we believe in its core value of social justice. Imposing a reduction to the take home pay of some of our lowest paid workers runs completely contrary to this.

We fully support the difficult process of trying to equalise the Council’s very complex allowance system so that all staff are treated fairly. That said we deplore the fact that previous Labour and Conservative-led councils failed to fix the problem when they had the opportunity.

However, we cannot accept a situation which attempts to impose a settlement on staff without the agreement of all Unions involved. Negotiations should not pit worker against worker.

We remain concerned that as yet there appears to be no satisfactory negotiated resolution which means that balloting has happened and industrial action will occur from 6am this morning for a week.

We ask all sides to urgently find a successful resolution to avert industrial action which we believe could cause all workers, the council and the City considerable pain.