Green Party National Conference 2005
- Thread starter rebel warrior
- Start date
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Matt S said:
Not trying to disagree with the points you make, Matt, but the Labour Party were in control of Oxford City Council from 1981 to 2000 (19 years), winning it back after 7 years of Tory rule (hard to believe they were ever a majority, since the Tories haven't had any councillors for a while).
During most of the 1980s they were actually quite a progressive party and council, particularly under the brief leadership tenure of Alan Griffiths, around 1983. While they never went head to head with the government in the way Lambeth or Liverpool did, they froze rents and rates for several years and had an ambitious house building programme. They introduced access to the town hall and supported the women's movement. They began to do things for the long-ignored asian community and gave significant support to the miners during the year long strike of 1984-85 (through a Mayor's fundraising appeal for instance that allowed legal street collections for miners' welfare funds). They declared Oxford a 'nuclear free zone' and opposed the transport of nuclear weapons and waste through Oxford (cruise missiles from Greenham Common regularly travelled round the Oxford ring round). They also gave support to the Greenham Common women - in 1982 the council officially hosted a youth march from Oxford to Greenham that got a lot of young people involved in CND. They supported a strike at the car plants in Cowley (the 'washing up' dispute). In 1983 they invited Ken Livingstone to the Town Hall at a time when he was 'public enemy number one' over his stand on Ireland.
Many people sympathetic to the Greens were in the Labour Party at that time (some are now Green activists - Annie Skinner and Larry Sanders for example). The Council and Party moved to the right pretty rapidly in the early 1990s. But when the Green Party first started becoming active in the 1980s, most people in the Party saw them as right wing - opposing trade unionism and state ownership, and more aligned with the right wing Lib Dems (whose leading figures included former Labour MP and SDP defector Evan Luard, and, of course, current New Labour Minister for (mis-)Education Andrew Adonis).
There was a history that there was much to be proud of. Of course today's Oxford Labour Party is an abomination, but there was a period when it was significantly different.
rebel warrior said:
rebel judges all by the standards of the SWP a grass roots member in the swp would have been hand picked to propose.
I cant wait to here about wespect conference
Never mind the politics was Julia Stephenson, the candidate for Kensington and Chelsea there?
Has she signed the petition for the new mass workers party or did she ask the cleaner to do it on her behalf?
Has she signed the petition for the new mass workers party or did she ask the cleaner to do it on her behalf?
I bet you well fancy her a bit of upstairs downstairs lark, chucky 
mattkidd12 said:
Well, there is already a thread devoted to it.
And with RW providing the SWP CC 'line', Urban's resident Robotrots to support RW, and everyone else on here to rip them to pieces, I'd say a first class bunfight is in the offing.
And possibly some actual reasoned debate as well.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Why do you think that GPEW isn't a worthwhile vehicle, out of interest? Not having been on these boards for very long, I'm not clued up on everybody's politics here (though I'm learning).Nigel Irritable said:
And how would you use the Green activists you haven't written off if you have written off their party? Would they be subsumed into left/anti-capitalist parties, or should they be in the environmental NGOs?
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
I have a gut feeling that coalitions with tories will always be a bad idea for us.
It can never play well with most of our potential voters.
There are issues we can work with conservatives on ("what is more conservative than conservation?") like wildlife stuff and maintaining old buildings.
Issues always through up odd alliances, Im not sure if coalition administrations ought too.
I'd feel bad enough working with Labour or Liberals.
Political success can be a very ugly business.
It can never play well with most of our potential voters.
There are issues we can work with conservatives on ("what is more conservative than conservation?") like wildlife stuff and maintaining old buildings.
Issues always through up odd alliances, Im not sure if coalition administrations ought too.
I'd feel bad enough working with Labour or Liberals.
Political success can be a very ugly business.
I'll have a go at answering that one (I'm an anarchist and Nigel's a trot but we probably have a similar critique of the greens). Some of the reasons that I think that being active in the Green Party is actually counter-productive from a green / left point of view.parallelepipete said:
The green party has an electoral focus and focusing on elections means that you might as well try to win them. This means various things like concentrating on building up the profile of individual candidates at the expense of horizontal structures and mass participation. It also means concentrating on 'damage limitation' (as alluded to in RW's sectarian intro) from the media. For example, if the tabloid rags get hold of the news that a revolutionary was elected onto some important body, they would be quite keen to share it with their readership. Similarly if the greens were to pass motions that were 'anti-business', the right wing rags would not be slow to announce the green's plans to 'wreck the economy'. This would in turn be looked upon as an imepediment to electoral success and an embarassment by the more liberal wing of the membership who would start to apply pressure internally to stop the 'uncontrollables' and irresponsible wing from ruining their electoral chances.
A very good example of the above process happened in the run up to the Iraq war in Ireland. An activist 'disarmed' a US plane with an axe. The green party leader defended the action. After 3 days of the media and all the other parties screaming about the 'support for illegal activity' of the Green party, another group of activists did the exact same thing to the very same plane. The green party leader condemned them.
Although the UK green party is far from being a real electoral threat and can thus slip under the radar at the moment, it is very clear from the reports that there is a fairly substantial wing of the party who are pushing the 'elections first' line. Given the loose structure of the party (which I suspect is fairly selective, for example I'm sure that a branch that started calling for armed struggle would be quickly silenced), there are going to be branches that follow this electoral route more than others and they will naturally be more successful. With electoral success comes funds and media platforms with which you can extend your influence within the party and this will surely happen. In short the more mainstream, electoral focused and 'compromise friendly' wing of the party will come to dominate over time and will become the party.
Along the way, with small successes they will increasingly meet the problem of forming local coalitions with the pro-capitalist parties and forming policies that are less likely to make the tabloid media start rabid scare campaigns about them. In keeping with the analysis above, by the time that this is a real problem, the wing of the party which has always advocated a more liberal line will be in control and there won't be much to stop the party following the line of electoral reasoning.
This will lead to compromises with the right-wing parties which amount to introducing a lot of 'consumer' focused flat rate taxes. For example, the bin tax, introduced over the last few years in Ireland to great opposition from the working class, was a good example. It didn't have much to do with waste disposal and was really no more than a way of shifting the burden of taxation towards the poor, but it was supported all the way by the green party (with reservations about how it should be implemented). Eventually the logic of coalition and elections will make the green party drop all their 'idealistic' policies (cf german greens and war in Serbia) in favour of 'pragmatic' solutions. Pragmatic solutions, in this neo-liberal world, include the rule that taxes on business will 'damage the economy' and so all the taxes are on a 'polluter pays' principle, except that it is the poor consumer who is defined as being the sole polluter.
The problem with this from an environmentalist point of view is that it's pretty pointless trying to solve environmental problems anywhere but at the point of production. From a left point of view, it's just a small step in the process of shifting taxation burdens from rich to poor (by replacing progressive taxes like income tax with regressive flat rate taxes as per the EU's strategy of the lisbon agenda) which is why the right wing parties love it, they get to wear a green fig leaf while implementing their ceaseless struggle to accumulate more wealth for the elite.
The net result of all this is that the green party achieves nothing except salving the consciousness of their increasingly well-to-do voter base. The notion of environmentalism gets closely associated with unjust taxation by the less well off among the working class (who are the very people who should be most concerned by environmental problems). Environmental problems continue to get worse as the green party becomes less and less interested in tackling the fundamental problems and more and more interested in electoral considerations (don't piss off the media!).
This is pretty much what has happened to the Green party wherever it has had any electoral success. The UK greens seem to be walking straight down the same increasingly slippery slope.
I know that one of the founders of the Irish greens who was a member back when they were non-hierarchical and activist focused is now a leading light in the Grassroots (direct action) network. Much of the above analysis is based on his experiences. However, sadly, I reckon that most people either accept the exchange of principles for electoral success and stick it out or just get demoralised and give up. Many of them end up in environmental NGOs as well as remaining in the party but I'd consider that a similar slippery slope into uselessness and inevitable self-inflicted defeat.parallelepipete said:
Yes Darren Johnson is still 'getting down and funky' at city hall.Ryazan said:
gurrier, we've had various debates about this before, for example during the bin tax protests: Maybe your criticisms of the Irish Green Party are accurate, but it is worth pointing out that the Green Party of England & Wales (GPEW) doesn't support making taxation more regressive. It has a clear policy that eco-taxes should *only* be introduced where equal adjustments are made so that poorer people are not made any worse off - for example through adjusting benefits and taxation.
I don't know enough about the Irish Green Party to comment on them, but I do feel it is unfair to simply assume that the GPEW shares all the same problems or takes the same stance on everything.
Regarding local parties being 'silenced' if they called for 'armed struggle': local parties are autonomous to a large extent, but they still have to operate within the Green party constitution, and I am fairly sure that armed struggle isn't in there (at least not unless we were all in an extremely dire situation a la 1939 maybe?):
Statement of Core Principles
...
6. We emphasise democratic participation and accountability by ensuring that decisions are taken at the closest practical level to those affected by them.
7. We look for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of minorities and future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements.
...
9. Electoral politics is not the only way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help to affect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.
policies: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
What an excellent thread, i wish more were like this, a very good analysis Gurrier and unfortunately it may be come to pass: unless the UK Greens are fundamentally different that the German ones, which I doubt. (though we should note the German Greens came out of the unique 68 experience.)
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Very good gurrier. The stuff about working-class perceptions I think particularly important and I think there is a genuine failure to connect that needs to be addressed there. As we've just seen in New Orleans and are about to see due to oil/gas costs, sustainability issues are potentially quite important to working class people.gurrier said:
Unsustainability, injustice and capitalism are inextricably linked, so responding to them within a capitalist context is always going to be a bit tricky.
I still think green parties have some value, especially at local government level where the link to local activists is still fairly close, but they aren't in any way sufficient to address any of the deep problems for pretty much the reasons that you've described. I think they do more good than harm though, which is why, although not a member, I help them sometimes.
I agree with the main thrust of Gurrier's analysis (and I'm a Green Party member). Although it's also arguable that public attitudes could shift so that a radicalised population would turn to the Green Party.
One example could be the emergence of peak oil. If an accurate prediction, this will take our civilisation into unchartered territory, and the Green Party could play a vital role in providing a community / ecological alternative to a 1933 style situation.
Regardless of the validity of anarchism as a political system, at the moment we're stuck with what we've got. I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say I would prefer an electoral vacuum to be filled by the Green Party rather than another fringe party like UKIP, the BNP or Respect.
If peak oil or a similar crisis is nowhere near, then Gurrier is more or less right. Although I'd disagree that a Green Party is useless if it has to compromise. It can still ensure that a lot of community or environmental projects are supported which would otherwise be smothered.
Even on the big issues: imagine there were a Labour government with Green and lib dem support - and the Labour prime minister wanted to go to war in the middle east. The Greens could threaten to collapse the government if British troops were deployed - and thus stop a war.
Granted, a small green party is not going to remould society but then neither is an anarchist group. So let's do what can be done.
One example could be the emergence of peak oil. If an accurate prediction, this will take our civilisation into unchartered territory, and the Green Party could play a vital role in providing a community / ecological alternative to a 1933 style situation.
Regardless of the validity of anarchism as a political system, at the moment we're stuck with what we've got. I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say I would prefer an electoral vacuum to be filled by the Green Party rather than another fringe party like UKIP, the BNP or Respect.
If peak oil or a similar crisis is nowhere near, then Gurrier is more or less right. Although I'd disagree that a Green Party is useless if it has to compromise. It can still ensure that a lot of community or environmental projects are supported which would otherwise be smothered.
Even on the big issues: imagine there were a Labour government with Green and lib dem support - and the Labour prime minister wanted to go to war in the middle east. The Greens could threaten to collapse the government if British troops were deployed - and thus stop a war.
Granted, a small green party is not going to remould society but then neither is an anarchist group. So let's do what can be done.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Japey said:
I'm sorry this is a ludicrous hypothetical- almost exactly the same thing was said in the 1998 general election campaign in Germany.
"If the SPD get in without an overall majority- then us Grune will be in a chance to form an SPD-Grune coalition- this will then fend off the worst excesses of a SPD by encouraging "left" policies and clipping the wings of interventionist or capital expansionist foreign policy."
Pro-parliament and anti-parliament socialists in Germany who made this claim were attacked viciously by the Grune for being morose, moribund, moronic ideological purists who knew nothing about politics etc etc...
So you think it was a bad thing that the Greens cooperated with Ken Livingston and helped get the London congestion charge up and running? Don't you think it is better, once elected, to get in and change what you can, push things as far as they will go, use relatively small numbers of elected Greens to maximum effect - instead of of sitting in ideological purity at the sidelines, shouting abuse and not actually changing anything, even at the margins?
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Excellent post Gurrier.
You are highlighting the contradictions of power.
I'm a Green Party member but there is a lot in what you say.
Power tends to lead to fudeged comprimises, this was at the core of Blair's early excuses in government.
Also, when a party is successful it attracts people who wouldnt have been inclined to join before, perhaps for nefarious reasons of ego.
Hasnt happened in England / Wales much, but I bet it does elsewhere.
Someone posted a bit of our constitution saying party politics is only one means of achieving our ends, which is massively important.
I agree that pushing a candidate damages horizontality of structures, but to be honest our party is so...er...modestly sized that just about anyone could be an officer or local candidate if they put a bit of time in ("democracy is the tyranny of those who turn up")
I know that greens make a difference in government, that's why I stick with them because we can get very different and often more powerful results than many other forms of activism.
For example, if there a just 2 Greens on a council we can put motions to council.
Local press can then be covering stories about good ideas we pushed forward but the establishment parties rejected. Thus we can be a very good tool for shaming parties that are all talk and no trousers on climate change, public transport, civil liberties etc.
When Greens get elected, the other parties HAVE to take our issues more seriously. They are issues that find a great deal of resonance outside of more traditional Green votes.
I think the future for the Green Party is very positive, though there are many hard years of slow growth ahead.
We would all do well to consider what you've said about the structural contradictions in what can be doing.
If we play it right the Greens could parallel the rise of Labour in the early 1900s,
but we all know what happened to them...
For what its' worth I would be VERY wary of going into ANY coalition EVER as a Green Party.
You are highlighting the contradictions of power.
I'm a Green Party member but there is a lot in what you say.
Power tends to lead to fudeged comprimises, this was at the core of Blair's early excuses in government.
Also, when a party is successful it attracts people who wouldnt have been inclined to join before, perhaps for nefarious reasons of ego.
Hasnt happened in England / Wales much, but I bet it does elsewhere.
Someone posted a bit of our constitution saying party politics is only one means of achieving our ends, which is massively important.
I agree that pushing a candidate damages horizontality of structures, but to be honest our party is so...er...modestly sized that just about anyone could be an officer or local candidate if they put a bit of time in ("democracy is the tyranny of those who turn up")
I know that greens make a difference in government, that's why I stick with them because we can get very different and often more powerful results than many other forms of activism.
For example, if there a just 2 Greens on a council we can put motions to council.
Local press can then be covering stories about good ideas we pushed forward but the establishment parties rejected. Thus we can be a very good tool for shaming parties that are all talk and no trousers on climate change, public transport, civil liberties etc.
When Greens get elected, the other parties HAVE to take our issues more seriously. They are issues that find a great deal of resonance outside of more traditional Green votes.
I think the future for the Green Party is very positive, though there are many hard years of slow growth ahead.
We would all do well to consider what you've said about the structural contradictions in what can be doing.
If we play it right the Greens could parallel the rise of Labour in the early 1900s,
but we all know what happened to them...
For what its' worth I would be VERY wary of going into ANY coalition EVER as a Green Party.
Similar threads
