Matt S said:
...
P.S. F_G - yes, I'm sure you're interested in how things are going in Leeds - rather than just bringing it up for the sake of embarassing us, as you do on every thread.
My stance remains the same - it is an embarassment, but something that most national Green Party activists (wrongly) refuse to do anything about, because they value decentralisation extremely highly...
I'm interested in what the Greens do as well as what they say. I think that is quite reasonable.
The facts are that in Lancaster and Oxford, Green Councillors went into disastrous coalitions with the LibDems to take control of the council away from the Labour Party. They held positions of power and influence, and failed to achieve any significant radical changes, with the coalitions eventually losing control.
In Leeds, the Greens have gone a stage further and last year joined a coalition with the Tories. Matt defends this on the grounds of the autonomy of the Green Party local branches, though he makes clear that he personally believes that joining such a coalition is wrong. I respect this point of view though I do not necessarily agree with it. But where I think he is seriously wrong is not to open this particular local Green Party actions open to public scrutiny. He complains every time I raise it because it is 'getting a dig at the Greens'. But if the Greens want to be taken seriously I think we have the right to examine what they do - I did actually vote for a Green Party candidate in the last election where they presented themselves in my immediate locality (General Election, 2001). I would have happily voted for a joint Green/Respect slate in the North West in 2004, with a Green at the top of the slate, but that suggestion was unceremoniously rebuffed by the Greens. I think I have a perfect right to question what the Green Party are doing in Leeds, in case they might wish to do the same thing in my locality.
I have perused the minutes and verbatim reports of Leeds City Council for the last couple of council meetings - this is not without difficulty as there are hundreds of pages of reports and minutes, and local government decision making is somewhat opaque, most key decisions in local government being made now behind the closed doors of the Cabinet system. There are only a few recorded votes and as far as I can see the Greens vote with the Tories and against Labour on most issues.
The most revealing debate I have read concerned a resolution on Climate Change proposed by the Greens at the Council Meeting of 1st November 2005. The Green motion went as follows:
"That this Council recognises that Climate Change is likely to be one of the key drivers of change within our Community this century. It acknowledges that evidence continues to mount that Climate Change is occurring, and welcomes the social, economic and environmental benefits which will come from combating Climate Change.
It therefore agrees that the Council recommends the Executive Board to adopt the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, and as required by the Declaration will prepare a plan with local communities to address the causes and effects of Climate Change."
Perfectly reasonable as far as it goes, but not actually committing the Council to very much. The resolution received the warm support of the Tories.
However the (opposition) Labour Group moved an amendment:
Add at the end of the final paragraph:
‘and looks forward to seeing the appropriate funding for this initiative reflected in next year’s council budget’
The debate was that the Labour Group were arguing that you could not support such an initiative without putting some resources towards it. They suggested the Council might need to appoint a specialist energy officer. The Labour Group spokesperson said:
"Our amendment simply wishes to say that we need to be as specific as possible about what actually is done, who is going to do what and how is it going to be paid for? Do we need, for example, a specialist energy officer, which is what other councils have employed? It is an attempt to try and be as specific as possible when we know that there are hugely complicated issues: How we are going to deal with waste, how we are going to have a sustainable, environmentally sound transport policy, etc., etc.
I will finish with a wonderful quote from King Lear when the Duke of Kent says to the daughters who are giving wonderful speeches about their love and affection for their father, he says, "Your large speeches may your deeds pprove that good effects may spring." Our motion is an attempt to try and be as specific as possible about this issue so that good effects do spring. Thank you very much.
(Applause)"
The Tories made a long reply to the Labour proposition and accused the Labour Party of always wanting to spend money on 'projects'. They argued you could do more with less money (in true Tory style) and that the amendment was not necessary. They also said they were committed to spending less money and criticised Labour for calling them 'cuts'. This is hardly surprising as it has been Tory dogma in office for centuries.
But the Greens did not reply to the specifics of this debate or in any way distinguish themselves from the Tories. The Greens mover of the amendment, made a very short summary as follows (this is the whole of it by the way, not an extract!):
"I think we all want to get home now, we have had a long day. I just ask you to support the motion and I would say to Members opposite (ie Labour Party), please remove the amendment and let's all support this one resolution about moving forward. Thank you."
The Labour Group demanded a recorded vote which showed the Greens, Tories and LibDems voting as a bloc against the Labour amendment.
And just in case shortage of time prevented them distinguishing their position from that of the Tories, the debate was reported as follows on the local Green Party website:
"Green success on climate change declaration
Cllr David Blackburn moved a White Paper Motion at the November Council meeting calling on the council to sign up to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change. When a similar motion was put to council several years ago by the Green Party a wrecking amendment was passed by Labour. This time the motion was carried."
http://greens.farnleyandwortleyward.info/
Now obviously I am not naive enough to fail to realise that this was a fairly cynical ploy by the Labour Party to embarrass the Greens in their coalition with the Tories. But I cannot see how the Green Party are distinguishing themselves from the Tories and putting forward their own policies for implementation in the Council. In contrast the Respect councillors in Preston have put forward a number of resolutions on environmental issues and have managed to win support from across the parties. However Respect has preserved its independence from the other parties and its resolutions call for concrete actions by the Council and Respect puts forward its own budget proposals that seek to commit the Council to carrying out these policies and against cuts in services.
It seems to me that the Greens are digging a big hole for themselves on Leeds Council. This is not something that fills me with delight as I do genuinely want to see cooperation between the socialist left and Greens (including those socialists who look to the Labour Party). The Greens are projecting themselves as simply anti-Labour but prepared to do deals and give ground to the Tories in order to achieve that.
All Leeds Council information from:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council and...ing (Full) 1st November 2005/page.aspx?style=
Preston Respect Councillors:
http://www.prestonrespect.org/productssimple.html
The media don't cover us, we are a small party, with a tiny amount of money. We cannot afford a full time press officer. The coverage that we do get is generated from a volunteer press office and the staff of our elected representatives. The solution is not, I think, just one of "must try harder". It's one of "cannot do any better unless more people join and become active".
