That year has been endlessly referenced across the entirety of the media. But the events which preceded the Summer of Love were the Spring of Prague. It seems to me that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia bears far more historical assonances with this year, forty years on, than the revolutionary joy that the Anglosphere enjoyed a few months later.
Which is unfortunate on more levels than I can bear express.
A Press Release from Caroline Lucas floated its way into my in-box yesterday. It provides ample illustration of (one of) the reasons I intend to vote for her:
“We need to double the number of Councillors we have over the next few years. We need to find the next generation of Green councillors.
“We need to create the next Green success, like Norwich, Brighton, Lancaster and Oxford.
“Where we are established like Liverpool, Bristol, Cambridge and Solihull, we need our council groups to grow and set the agenda. We need to give Green councillors the help to succeed.
“Rural successes in Stroud and St Ives need to be repeated.
“Many cities, like Newcastle, Durham and Cardiff could easily have Green councillors and Green MPs. We need people to join and help us win elections to these councils.
“We need new members to join, and we need to actively invite community activists to join. The Green Party is the natural home for anyone who stands up for their local community, local jobs and services: that’s what the Green Party is all about.
“Often the best way to fight for your local community is to get elected and hit your opponents where it hurts: in the ballot box.”
This is all perfectly true. Local politics affects people as much as anything that occurs at a national level, and often faster and more visibly. If we want to change lives, then we need to win seats on councils across the country.
And if we want to make that change national, then we still need to build that support up locally. People will only vote for Green MPs if they know Greens will make their lives better; and, in many ways, the best way to show them that is to break into the council chamber and stand for them. Our strongest hopes for the next General Election - Brighton Pavillion, Norwich South, Lewisham Deptford - all have highly active and vocal council groups. Voters give Greens a chance on the council, and then they cast their verdict in subsequent elections, local and national. So, if we want MPs, we need councillors first.
Lucas clearly understands that. Her site suggests she knows what the Green Party must do if it’s ever to enact the radical policies that make it different; get Greens in office. That task needs work from the grassroots to convince voters to back us, as this release argues.
Also; that bloggers received this release is instructive, I feel. The leadership elections have been very good to Greens with an interest in the new media. Both leadership candidates maintain blogs or interactive websites, as does Adrian Ramsay and most GPEX candidates. The past week saw Jim Jepps host online hustings for GPEX positions and the leadership. So, the candidates have been willing to engage their electorate in detailed and meaningful dialogue, over the internet; a far cry from the token YouTube videos Labour’s deputy leadership elections last year produced. I feel encouraged.
As a wannabe web nerd, I spend some time browsing professional Wordpress theme designs. Today I spent some time mocking up a design for my own website, which I will begin building in the next few days. It was with interest, then, to find that the much-trumpeted Number10 website has been unveiled - built on Wordpress! Get Gordon, all trendy and open source! Just today I read an article by a blogger on the problems with pushing Wordpress too far beyond a simple blog format, trying to decide whether the platform can really cope with uses beyond those which it was designed for. In short, I love Wordpress and am happy to mould it to suit any purpose, but the kind of site at Number10 should really be on a more robust content management system.
(I suspect at this point that most readers will not care greatly about the intricacies of Wordpress as a publishing system, so I shall leave the issue aside.)
The visual identity of the site is remarkably different to the old one. What was once a practical website that looked as if it was created by a team of civil servants with solid scripting knowledge, but little eye for design, is now reasonably professional but not remotely official-looking. It feels like the website for a small business, not the gateway to the seat of power. But the simplicity and closeness is not necessarily a bad thing. The colour scheme works well, and the use of white space is a stark contrast to the overbearing mass of information dumped by the previous incarnation.
This is genuinely web2.0. Not only is it open source in software, it fully integrates feeds from Flickr, Twitter and YouTube. This is, really, everything that WebCameron is not. Where WebCameron is lacking, Number10 shows the Tories how it is done. But where WebCameron works, this is too poor a comparison to look like an imitation. There is no original blog content from the PM himself - why use easy-as-pie Wordpress if nobody is actually blogging? And why on earth is all of the video contained in a TelegraphTV-style media centre instead of being embedded into articles? Fundamentally, though, why use blogging software if there is no facility to comment?
This could have been a great break for government to reach into new media. To get the public’s attention where it is of most value - on the internet. I have long argued for the internet as being massively more important for government than any other media source, including television and newspapers, and this site relaunch was the perfect opportunity for government to wake up. But they are still slumbering.
The gesture of using Wordpress is thoroughly unnecessary. There is no good reason for using a blogging platform for the kind of content the Number10 website hosts. If the website were to contain blogs, or even comments under articles, Wordpress would be perfect. But for the kind of use Number10 has, Wordpress is simply the wrong package to choose (even from the open source options available). The (surely deliberate) attempt to look hip and trendy by straying into WebCameron territory is pointless unless the great benefits of WebCameron are realised. Most argue that Cameron’s site did not go quite far enough towards interaction, and, fundamentally, failed to keep moving forwards. Instead, it has stagnated. The new Number10 has a ready stream of content to keep it fresh, but it is simply press releases and speech transcripts. I want to see short video clips of Gordon behind his desk telling us “I’ve just got off the phone with Putin, discussing South Ossetia. We are agreed on…”. Such content can be put up within minutes, and would give the public at least a nudge towards believing that Gordon is actually serving a purpose behind that shiny black door.
This is a typical government Emperor’s New Clothes phenomenon. You know the story: the Emperor is really proud of his new outfit and shows it off to everyone. Blinded by the Emperor’s presence and the fact that everyone is enamoured by the outfit, everyone is amazed by this most brilliant set of clothes ever produced. Until one thoughtful person points out that the Emperor is, in fact, stark naked. Here is a blog: it’s built on Wordpress, it looks like a blog, it feels like a blog, it quacks like a blog… etc. In fact, though, it is nothing of the sort. It uses blogging software where a traditional CMS would be more appropriate. It integrates photos via Flickr instead of directly though the site simply because Flickr sounds trendy. Likewise video is pumped via YouTube on the front page, because of brand association, and then via a different out-of-the-box system on a the video page because YouTube isn’t actually the best way to show video after all. As for the use of Twitter: a nonsense gesture, and transparently vacuous. Everything that makes this website look like a blog is inefficient and wrong: in short, only there to make it look like a blog!
They don’t seem to get it. The Number 10 website could easily have become a fantastic blog-based hub of accessible government. It could have featured regular minute-long video pieces from the prime minister, with comment facilities below. It could have hosted the ability to discuss the vast number of press releases and speeches archived on the site. It should, at the very least, have hosted a blog from Gordon Brown. He need not have pretended he had time to log into Wordpress and hit “publish” five times a day, but if he can squeeze out three books while Chancellor and Prime Minister, he can knock off a few blog posts each week.
I do not regularly comment on new government website builds, but this one was different. It was built up in the press as the dawn of a new era in prime ministerial closeness. Instead, it is a perfect exercise in appearing to be everything that you want, but actually turning out to be nothing at all. I am severely disappointed in this squandered opportunity: the Emperor’s clothes may be new, but they are not actually clothes at all.
Warning: Long, probably unoriginal and intensely self-indulgent post focused on ideological rambling to follow. Ignore if you (perhaps justifiably) suffer a tendency to hurl accusations of pomposity at such posts; it’ll be better for us all.
The State and the Citizen: Or, Why I am a Democratic Socialist, part 1.
We move from first basics; we assume, in general, that people seek what they define as happiness, as Bentham suggests. It’s the only definition of human activity beyond the soul-destroying vagaries of genetic struggle which accommodates the more perverse elements of human behaviour. And it creates few problems; who would deny they want to be happy in life?
This should, for the most part, mean people are left to their own devices; happiness is subjective, and can only be achieved for each individual by those individuals. Anyone who pursues their own happiness and does not infringe upon the attempts of others to do the same only does what seems natural. They have every right to do so.
There are, however, conflicts likely to arise; some citizens will attempt to derive their pleasure at the expense of others. Say, if an individual chooses to steal from another the fruit of their labour; thereby furthering their pleasure at the expense of another. A state is thus necessary, with its primary purpose to balance the interests of citizens. It must seek to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number - in essence, a utilitarian tool.
Clearly, by virtue of universal humanity, we can assume certain freedoms are essential for that pursuit of happiness. The state must seek to safeguard those freedoms if it wishes to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number; and the classical libertarian definition of freedom won’t do, as it allows individuals and corporations to assault individual freedom. The state must, of course, have clear boundaries and be bound by the rule of law - but we must accept an interventionist state is necessary for greater freedom.
Instead of the libertarian definition of freedom, we should consider a doctrine of applied freedom; where theoretical liberty characterised by absence of legal restraint is useless if held back by real-life circumstances. Clearly, people aren’t free if they’re hungry; they cannot focus on the pursuit of happiness as they need to find food first. People aren’t free if a thief breaks down their door and ransacks their home. People aren’t free if they’re freezing - or suffer extreme poverty and have no escape, or lack support in their old age, or are orphaned, or ignorant, or their planet is dying through the negligence of others. They cannot act independently, and so cannot move towards happiness.
The state must guarantee these essential needs and freedoms if it’s to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Taxation becomes necessary; those who can afford it should be taxed at a level which won’t seriously impede their ability to seek happiness to allow those who can’t to seek that same happiness. The money raised funds the apparatus of freedom; state education to ensure all have the chance to pursue happiness, a police force to protect that chance and pensions to allow those who can’t work the same chance.
But even that’s not enough. The power of organised capital and corporations can be as damaging to individual freedom and happiness as any level of state power. Consider the relationship between an unskilled worker and a multinational corporation; there are many of the former, and despite the absolute necessity of many of the roles they fill, their sheer numbers ensure that employers can, in effect, screw them over. They need to work to survive, and so will work for virtually any wage - yet their employers don’t need them in particular, so can pay them any wage, no matter how low. The workers can’t refuse that piddling wage, as they’ll lose their jobs; and without those jobs, they’ll find themselves thrown on the mercies of society. In short, a clear example of certain individuals grossly profiting and the expense of others. So, the state must intervene, ensuring all employers pay a minimum wage on which it is possible to survive.
Likewise, if a group of selfish individuals control an essential and universal service, they can wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of others; witness the cruel absurdities of healthcare in the USA. Those who control an industry can take control, jack up the prices and so the profits - and if people can’t afford the service, they suffer. Universally necessary services in private hands are conducted to the benefit of those private hands - not the majority who desperately need them.
So, the state must take any essential services for which there is a universal human need, and ensure they’re universally accessible. You cannot be truly free if you’re sick; so a universally accessible national health services is necessary. You cannot be truly free if you’re freezing; so mass energy generation should be nationalised and energy - or the means of generating it at a household level - made accessible to all. This can take place on a partial basis too, if it’s all that’s needed. You can’t be free if you’re homeless but want a roof - so the state should build and control some housing. You can’t be free if you can’t reach your place of work as you don’t own private transport - so the state needs to provide some level of nationalised transport. And so on. The objective is to prevent one group of individuals gaining so much power over others as to make those others’ existence a misery; and the means of delivering this is placing the means by which life might be made into a misery into the hands of a neutral entity which exists for the benefit of all.
To ensure those services are rendered to the benefit of all, those who control the state must be rigorously accountable - and subject to regular elections. The power of the electorate to demolish any government that doesn’t act in the interests of the greatest number ensures that governments will act in the popular interest. Here, we see the superiority of nationalised essential services over the same services when they exist in private hands; democratic elections ensure those services are administered to the benefit of citizens, rather than the owners as they are when privatised.
The state thus exists to benefits citizens - and only to benefit citizens. Regular elections should ensure this; while a codified constitution setting out the fundamental rights of citizens and the barriers of government ensure the same in between elections. If, though, the state breaks that constitution, and so assaults the population’s basic liberty, then citizens have a right to legal redress; the state is as bound by the constitution as citizens are by the rule of law, and so must be answerable. If the state prevents that legal redress from occurring, it ceases entirely to act in the interests of citizens, and so becomes a Tyranny. If a state descends into Tyranny and sheds the essential manacles of democracy, then citizens in turn are no longer obliged to obey that state’s laws. Why should they sacrifice their happiness and liberty if they receive neither security nor the happiness of others in return? They shouldn’t. They have a right to rebel, throwing off the chains of the state which betrayed them and reclaiming that happiness. This right to insurrection must be written in the constitution; for only then will potential tyrants remember their peril.
A strange situation at Pickled Politics tonight; take a look at the comments thread here. The poster raised the well documented absurdity of the policing at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp. And found himself leapt upon by commenters as a hysterical leftie thoroughly disconnected from reality.
The following comment is typical:
The state are not imposing anything on anyone here. Just because you are forcibly removed from an area does not make you any more right, nor does it automatically entitle you to call yourself a victim. Why don’t these people, go home, get ‘actually’ politically active and try to come up with solutions instead of trying to manufacture publicity through stunts?
Pardon? The state very much has imposed itself here. Citizens have a democratic right to protest; one supposedly guaranteed in law by the Human Rights Act. They may gather on any piece of public land to voice their concerns over any matter. The state should exist to protect those very freedoms. If the state - or its agents, the police - attempts to restrict them, it commits an assault on liberty and fails in its role.
The protestors at Climate Camp were clearly peaceful. They came there to hold workshops on environmental life and climate change, not viciously beat up policemen. Some didn’t attempt to hide their intention of shutting down the power-station, no; but that, at most justified a police cordon around the power station to protect what’s legally private property. (That it spews out noxious gas and thus directly affects those around it, very much bringing the matter into the public interest, remains to be addressed…). The protestors within the Climate Camp should have been free from harrassment.
So when the police spend an estimated £3 million to bus in officers from far-flung corners of the country to set-up a cordon around the camp before routinely entering it, ransacking private possessions and cart-off protestors on any pretext, they do impose themselves. The protestors have a right to make themselves heard, and when a force supposed to protect that right mercilessly shits on it, they are victims.
More bizarre were comments along these lines:
I showed an American friend this video, she laughed, she said they were so brutal, her shoe nearly fell off!
Come on. There actions are probably over the top. But brutal? Have you heard the quip about heaven, where the Police are British, the chefs are French etc?
In France, the CRS would have literally beat the shit out of them. In fact, I cannot think of another country where the all police wouldn’t have drawn their batons straight away.
Wait - so because our instances of authoritarian policing are less brutal than those abroad, they become okay? Police brutality against peaceful protestors remains police brutality; just because the French riot police are downright sadistic doesn’t stop an assault on democratic freedoms across the channel from being just that.
It isn’t hysteria to rage at length over this. Protest is an essential tool to remind the powerful you exist; the state, which exists to protect and extend the freedom of all citizens, cannot be allowed to choose when or how it’s acceptable to exercise that freedom. Unless the exercise of liberty infringes on that of another, it’s not its job, and shouldn’t be - unless we enjoy repression.
Excellent news; a group of MPs plan to launch a motion challenging the current Oath of Allegiance sworn by MPs before taking their seats. The current wording is transparently medieval:
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
Atheists may opt out of swearing by God - but what of republicans? They’re forced to swallow their principles and spout the oath if they wish to represent their constituents. Democratically elected representatives must swear to an unelected figure or, as with Sinn Fein, betray the constituents who elected them and refuse to take their seats.
The republican case for dropping the oath, along with the entire monarchy, is strong enough; any democratic system must ensure sovereignty is derived from the people and not an unelected figurehead. The oath suggests MPs have a greater duty to the monarch rather than their constituents - and so, surely, defeats the point of electing representatives rather than appointing them. It’s merely a symptom of a grossly unrepresentative cancer in our constitution, which needs removal.
But even the most ardent monarchist must see the arguments here. The one Tory who supports the motion, Peter Bottomley, makes the case well enough; the Parliament exists, in our outdated constitution, to advise the monarch as to the will of the people. As such, all representatives of the people must be allowed entry, even those who seek to abolish the monarchy, must be allowed entry to argue their case. He wants an opt-out rather than the fundamental change republicans ultimately must seek - but he agrees that the oath has to change.
So, congratulations to Norman Baker (who, incidentally, is in double favour at present) and the 21 other MPs launching the motion - both for the motion, and for pissing off Tebbit.
The Police surrounding Kingsnorth Climate Camp were issued a booklet entitled “Policing Protest” by the sinister sounding National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit. Indymedia brings us a dropped booklet - and very englightening it is too. The pamphlet is very vague in places, with key terms defining what precisely constitutes an offence left to individual judgement and whatever’s considered, “ordinary,” by the office (see p7).
So, are there any dangerous extremists at Kingsnorth? I think it’s time to consult the booklet. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 states:
An offence is committed:
- I if a person uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
- II Distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
So, in short - if an individual frightens another individual with the threat of violence. Did that happen at Kingsnorth? Why yes, comrades. You see that snarling man in the centre wearing a fluorescent jacket brandishing what looks to be a blunt object, as though he’d do violence against those unarmed citizens; he looks to be just such a dangerous extremist. And don’t those unarmed civilians look scared?
Note also that provocation to unlawful violence is an offence - one the Police already stand accused of. Baton charges and full riot gear aren’t usually deployed against pacifists and vegans. It’s uneccessary, and smacks of an attempt to intimidate said vegans. So when those baton charges are carried out, they become offences under Section 4A of the same Act:
An offence is committed if with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress, a person:
- I uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
II displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Not looking good, is it? Similar offences took place under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Unless, of course, smashing the windows of supply vans and the confiscation of materials essential to basic hygiene isn’t an attempt to harrass protestors.
Perhaps the Kent Police will fare better under Section 12 of the Public Order Act, which deals with public processions. It states that conditions may be imposed on activity if it might result in:
I serious public disorderII serious damage to propertyIII serious disruption to the life of the communityIV the purpose of procession is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.
Let’s treat the columns of police vans that made their way to Kingsnorth as a procession. They’re guilty of all four offences, I’m afraid, thus:
I Baton charges rather count, I think.
II See exhibit A; note also the theft of soap, crayons, board games, essential building materials, etc.
III We can treat the Climate Camp as a community; it has its own food supplies, kitchens, and even neighbourhoods. The Police have surrounded this community, search anyone who wants to enter it, cut off its food supplies and stolen numerous personal possessions (see II). This seems likely to have disrupted the community.
IV Peaceful Protest is a right guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. The protestors haven’t yet perpetrated violence, so can be assumed to be peaceful; they’ve thus a legal right to do as they have. The Police have interrupted their protest, and so compelled them not to do an act they have a right to do.
Section 14 concerns spontaeneous protest, so we’ll let them off here; the Police have clearly planned this for a while.
We move onto the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now. Section 42 concerns harrassment of the individual within their home. It states directions may be given should:
I that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ( “the resident”) as his dwelling;
II that individual believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do or
that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
III that individual also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.
We’ve already defined the Climate Camp as a settlement; it follows that tents and shelters contained in that settlement should be defined as (temporary) dwellings. The Police have entered into that settlement, patrolled outside the dwellings within, and taken possessions from those dwellings. That smacks of harrassment - and so, another offence against their own rules.
There follow a long string of inapplicable sections, before we reach Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states an offence is committed if an individual trespasses and, “does anything to intimidate persons on that land,” to deter them from any legal activity. So - how does entry into a private tent and taking soap, with the immediate intent to prevent protestors from engaging in the legal activity of washing, and the wider intent of making legal protest less attractive, sound? Like an offence, that’s what.
The section regarding Offence by Harrassment is obscured. But, given that we’ve already shown harrassment has taken place, we can assume the police are culpable here, too. Likewise Section 4 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes it an offence to, “pursue a course of conduct, ” which, “causes fear,” that violence will be used against them; that Baton Charges were threatened and occured incriminates the Police here. Preventing food supplies reaching the camp almost certainly required a public highway to be obscured; an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.
So, that makes the Police at Kingsnorth guilty (at least) of offences under the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 and the Highways Act 1980. Quite a charge sheet. But where will we keep them all while they’re on trial?
The Police can only justify their existence when they protect liberty. And yet, at Kingsnorth, they’ve demonstrably abused the law - and broken it on numerous occasions. The Climate Camp protestors have exercised their democratic right to protest, and the police have tried to stop them. In a more firebrand mood (or when drunk), I’d denounce them - and their masters at Westminster - as enemies of popular freedoms who fully deserve to be torn apart in a wild and bloody revolution as the people reclaim their rights. As it is, I’ll merely shake my head and say that I really do worry…
(Hat-tips for evidence: Indymedia, JimJay, Coventry Greens, Stuart Jeffrey)
There is something slightly nasty about capital cities. They are usually the administrative, economic and social centres of a country, and it is not unreasonable for those living elsewhere to resent the attention-hogging. The problem is pretty acute in the UK: despite embarrassing bending-over-backwards attempts by certain parts of the media to appear all regional, both politics and the associated journalism it is quite demonstrably London-centric.
The simple reason why, of course, is that it is a far more efficient way to do business. Journalists cannot keep offices in Yorkshire if they need to schmooze with politicians in Westminster. Cabinet cannot meet in Cornwall if ministers have departments to look after in Lanarkshire and Parliament to attend in Pembrokeshire. Not to mention, of course, their Norfolk constituency.
Thus any decentralisation of government would have to be carefully calculated to as to be an efficient process of representation and decision-making. Gordon Brown’s (stolen?) idea of roving Cabinet meetings is quite obviously stupid in both of these regards. It is the ultimate gimmick that has been thought through about as carefully as his “first year in office” strategy.
Areas of the UK outside London do not often get the full attention of Government, and that is a great shame. But having the entire Cabinet trundle up north somewhere, welcoming cameras for two minutes of smiles, and then shutting the doors for a private meeting is not what the country needs. (At this point, it is probably worth suggesting that Brown is planning a “oh, look, it’s September and I am still PM and the Cabinet is all happy and smiling for the cameras” strategy. The media would not buy it in Westminster, but any excuse to appear “regional” will doubtless be seized by the horns.) What the country needs is Cabinet ministers regularly holding town hall meetings across the country. Just as the BBC’s Question Time tours the UK bringing (sometimes) sensible debate to different areas of the country, so the government should encourage such local debate and discussion. To be fair, it seems as if Spetember’s Cabinet outing to the West Midlands will include a photo-op of some “outreach” mission so ministers can “listen” to local people’s concerns. But even if this were genuine, not just a cheap photo-op, it would be no replacement for open debate of issues. And proper contact with people on a local level is what is needed.
It is not too much to ask that 25 town halls across the UK each have two meetings a month, with Cabinet ministers cycling through them twice each year. A six-monthly feedback session and discussion of new areas of their briefs in each area of the country would be a brilliant way to keep ministers on their toes. It would force them to “listen” to the electorate. It might seem time-consuming, but it is only asking for one evening (or weekend afternoon) out of fourteen for a bit of local accountability. I cannot imagine that it would make government less effective. If government, and, indeed, Her Majesty’s Opposition, wishes to engage with real people and real issues, they should spare a few hours each fortnight to get debating and discussing in town halls around the country.
The Green Party leadership elections managed some media coverage today. Misreported, though, I fear:
A major row is currently brewing which is threatening to split the Green Party in two.
For the first time in their history, the Greens are about to launch a leadership contest involving two candidates, the MEP Caroline Lucas and the actor Ashley Gunstock, best known for his role as PC Frank in the long-running ITV show The Bill.
In the lead-up to the contest, the party’s operational wing, the Standing Orders Committee, took the unusual decision to publish the contact details of 7,000 members to help candidates lobby for votes.
The move has caused uproar in the party, which prides itself on its defence of civil liberties. More than 100 party members have signed an angry letter of protest, questioning the legality of the decision under the Data Protection Act.
Why isn’t this an issue? Because all candidates have agreed not to use membership data. Argument defused.
Assume, though, that the debate had raged - as it did for a short while. That Ashley Gunstock (whose candidacy I missed and shall write on soon) took the letters’ side perhaps provides a hint of where this election might go. The candidates disagreed, and so the leadership debate began in earnest. And with it, the debate on party direction.
Those hoping to restrict campaigning activities claim they stand for a more democratic party. They fear releasing membership details hands power to established candidates, and shuts out the grassroots. It’s a fear worth considering - any debate on democracy needs attention.
But it’s not justified. Internal democracy isn’t furthered by these restrictions on candidates.; it’s shackled. Candidates need access to membership details to make any case. How will members know who says what if candidates can’t campaign? The party gets little media coverage, and only puts out dull and neutral statements. Hardly the swiftest route to mass participation.
Consider, for example, the position of an exciting yet unknown candidate. They might be just what the party needed; but because most members hadn’t heard their name beyond a few lines in an internal e-mail, they’d miss their pitch and so miss that chance. Both the candidates and the members are disenfranchised when the former can’t speak to those with the votes. So, an essential means of participation by the bulk of the membership which actively strengthen the party’s internal democracy.
That’s the difference between the two points of view; and it’s an old one. In opposition, a rump (100 out of some 7000 members signed that letter…) of well-intentioned yet deluded members who want the best for the party but apparently have no means of delivery. In favour, a group focused on providing practical means to further the party’s radical heritage and engaging with members and public alike. Gunstock took the former side; Lucas (assuming the Indy got something right) the latter. That’s the debate so far - and it looks to be the one I predicted. Members have the choice between the wooly insignificance of the past, or the offer of a bright future. I know where I stand on that.
Adrian Ramsay launched his campaign for Deputy-Leadership of the Green Party today. His message seems simple - he’s a hugely competent activist and campaigner, at the heart of the Green movement.
The campaign website very much sets the tone. It’s slick and to the point; why Adrian’s standing, the reasons to vote for him, and how to help are set out plainly and within easy reach. To summarise each campaign plank in turn, Adrian puts his core values thus:
action as part of a movement social justice and affordability action on climate change anti-privatisation fair trade fair treatment of animals and wildlife
So, that’s an outwardly focused, leftish, green approach with a hint of internationalism. Any Green that could fault those as broad principles has perhaps joined the wrong party. He’s not solely focused on Westminster - the desire to have, “more contact,” with, “campaign groups and trade unions,” rather puts paid to that suggestion - and he wants to use that contact to move towards truly Green ends.
Not that Adrian would damage electoral success - far from it. As leader of the first Green Opposition on Norwich Council, he could easily lay claim to teaching the Party how to win council seats. And he does so for this campaign:
Adrian has been a councillor since he was 21, and is now Leader of the largest group of Green Party Councillors in the country.
Adrian was Election Campaign Manager when Norwich Green Party gained its first council seats in 2002. Since then, Adrian has played a key role in increasing Green representation on Norwich City Council from two to thirteen Councillors, as well as adding two Green County Councillors to represent the city at County level.
In the 2008 elections, the Green Party became the second party in Norwich (just two seats behind Labour). Adrian is the first Green Party Councillor to become the Leader of the Opposition on a local authority.
Rather impressive, I feel. Ramsay managed to make the Norwich Greens the most electorally successful local party in the country - and without compromising any level of radicalism. He’s worked with trade unions against privatisation, helped make Norwich a Fair Trade city, and moved to save local services. All of which sounds pleasantly close to his stated values.
This ability - to deliver electoral and practical success without compromising his principles - forms a key plank of his platform. There’s much on his experience, and how it’d provide a great boost in his target constituency of Norwich South. This, for example:
Our message is an urgent one. We need to be effective and organised as a party to get Greens elected to all levels of Government so we can champion and implement Green solutions to the world’s problems. Too often local parties are left to reinvent the wheel as they work to get Greens elected to their local council. Efforts are being made to spread best practice but we need to do more to help local parties and to communicate how our current success stories have come about and how Green Councillors have made a real impact at grassroots level. As a party we also need to be focused on securing the breakthrough into Westminster so ensure we are taken seriously as a national party. Winning in our three target General Election constituencies is the best way to build the party’s profile and credibility across the country. As Deputy Leader, I can bring experience of winning elections to the national party - and holding the position of Deputy Leader would add credibility to our campaign in the Norwich South target constituency and help bring that crucial breakthrough into Westminster a step closer.
So - he wants to build effective parties, at a local and national level. Sounds just about right for a Deputy-Leader. Perhaps more interesting, though, is his vision for the party:
There were understandably strong views on both sides of the leadership referendum debate. I believe that, as Green Party members, far more unites us than divides us. We need to have leadership at a national level that is inclusive, accountable and effective. At a local level I work hard to involve councillors and party members in the running of Norwich Green Party. As Deputy Leader I would see myself as playing a key role as part of a group, working alongside all members of the party Executive to make the party more effective and successful.
We also need to put in place the values and proposals that the two sides of the referendum debate shared. For example, I would support the introduction of a Green Shadow Cabinet, as proposed by Green Empowerment, so that we can have the benefit of a range of specialist speakers, accountable to the party, and so we are not reliant on two leadership figures for all the media coverage and speaking opportunities!
Adrian clearly looks to be pitching himself as a unity candidate between the two factions that emerged last year over leadership. A wise move, I feel, both for the election and if he wins; a Deputy Leader hoping to build the party into an effective force needs to hold appeal for all concerned. If that makes him a middle-of-the-road candidate - then it may well work.
Adrian Ramsay has constructed a virtually watertight campaign. Reaching out to the whole party, and grounding his appeal in an undeniable experience and talent, he presents an effective vision; the party’s radical politics, delivered by a credible and capable organisation. Anyone who does run against him will need to present a hugely attractive challenge - and probably from the outfield (Step forth, Comrade Wall?). Because otherwise, he seems to be just what the Green Party needs.
