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 The one Tory who supports the motion, Peter Bottomley, makes the case well enough; the Parliament exists, in our outdated constitution, to advise the monarch as to the will of the people.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.

Labour need more campaigns like this. It takes a good policy, uses it to show a clear difference between the parties, and does so in a simple, quick fashion. If they can manage that for the next two years, without any movement from the Tories or an internal earthquake, they might just survive next election.

Assuming they can persuade the electorate that the party that introduced the minimum wage in 1998 didn’t double income tax on those who benefitted in 2008, that is.

(Hat-tip: New Direction)

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.

Caroline Lucas launched her bid for leadership of the Green Party today. Her message is taking shape already - radical politics delivered with a credible and professional touch. Her website sums it up well:

On climate change, scientists tell us that the next 10 years will be critical in terms of whether we have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate chaos. It is still the case that only the Green Party has both the radical policies, and the political commitment, that are so desperately needed to ensure that we do.

And on social justice, we face a country more unequal than it has been for decades. Only the Green Party has coherent alternatives to government policies that are privatising public services, increasing inequalities, and leading to greater violence and exclusion.

That’s the radicalism, both in rhetoric and commitments. Note especially the fusion of traditional environmental politics with ideas of social justice - which first attracted me to the Greens. Lucas will present a radical, intelligent alternative to the current political consensus, and it’d be difficult to question that.

So that’s why she’s standing, I imagine. She’s a Green, and she wants to advance the Green cause. Why should Greens vote for her, though? Time for her own words again:

I am standing for the position of Party Leader because I believe I have the experience to ensure that this new role enables us to fulfil our potential as a Party. Since joining over 20 years ago, I’ve taken every opportunity to promote the Green Party as an articulate and radical voice in British politics, and I am committed to doing all I can to build the Party into a more effective and credible force in British politics.

That breaks down into three major points, one of which we’ve covered: she’s a committed Green, she’s our most competent and experienced politician, and she has an effective vision for the party. All three seem reasonable points.

There’s little doubt that Caroline means business. The website alone hints at that; the layout is professional, the writing succinct, and the tone to the point. And, of course, her record stares you in the face - it’s good, and much better than most MEPs or minor party politicians. So, she’s hardworking and knows what she’s doing. Can’t see any problem with point two, then.

And the vision? As you’d hope, that’s encapsulated very well in the front-page mini-manifesto. Note the consistent references to a, “leadership team”; neither an egoist’s “What my leadership will do,” nor the slightly unteneble, “All 7000 or so members together, preferably at the same time.” And it’s clear what she hopes for - an, “effective and creidble,” force for radical politics which is, “coherent.” She wants to make radical politics the mainstream - by making sure more Greens are elected, and giving everyone the chance to vote Green. That’s a rather difficult proposition to disagree with, surely?

Caroline Lucas would, I think, make a very good inaugural leader for the Greens. She has an effective strategy, and she knows how to implement it. It’d be bad form to declare myself for a candidate before all the nominations were in - but I’m impressed, and unless anything better comes along, convinced.

It doesn’t matter why David Davis resigned. Perhaps it’s the genuinely principled stand I’d like to believe it is; perhaps it’s simply political grandstanding. We’ll very likely never know, and shouldn’t waste much time speculating. What we should do now is use this opportunity, and use it properly.

Whether Davis likes it or not, this will never be a single issue campaign as it is. If Labour runs against the Tories, then it will turn into a campaign of Labour against the Tories, not libertarians against fascist cunts. Davis might want to campaign on the single issue of 42 Days, but is seems unlikely that Labour would let him if they even bother to stand. They don’t want to win the argument on their little piece of state terrorism, and have never wanted to - surely the dodgy doings with the DUP were enough to prove that?

No, they won’t fight on 42 Days. They’ll respond to any arguments Davis puts forward, perhaps - but only that. Otherwise, they’ll run on a full slate of policies, and hope for public apathy on their own liberties compared to the other issues they’ll campaign on to deliver them an increased share of the vote - and trumpet that as a victory in a Tory safe seat. They’ll attack the Tories, ignore the issue of freedom and duck as much that is thrown them as possible. That’d be the case whichever issue Davis ran on, simply because he’s a Tory; the only way you’ll get away with a single issue campaign is to belong to a group founded on that single issue. Shami Chakrabati would get away with it here. Davis won’t, as he’s a member of a national party with a policy platform which it’s now in Labour’s interest to bring up. They’ll would portray it as a cheap partisan trick, and avoid the crucial issue that they themselves are behaving in such a reprehensibly authoritarian fashion that even hardline Thatcherites will vote against them. They’d fail and lose the election because the seat is in the Conservatives’ pocket - but at the same time they’ll try to bury any debate on civil liberties.

We can’t let that happen. Anyone who values their freedom to walk the streets without being swept away into anonymous and unaccountable penury - for that is the precedent this sets - must make their voices heard. Whether you approve of Davis’ decision to resign or not, it’s crucial to act now; he’s resigned, we can’t do anything about that, and must work with what we’ve got. And that’s a potential national debate on civil liberties which the government will attempt to dodge at every opportunity, as it knows it’ll be hammered in a fair fight. They will try to divert the debate, and we must stop them.

So we must make a noise. We must get out there, shout, scream, petition, abuse, argue and campaign on the issue so Labour simply can’t escape. If people in every constituency from every party that values the simple concept of freedom come out and let the government know just how angry they are, then they won’t be able to paint this election as a Punch and Judy sausage fight. And the frequently illiberal Tories (not least Mr. “Gays don’t need rights” Davis…) won’t be able to co-opt the issue, as it’ll be clear everyone except the DUP are furious. Davis will win the by-election, yes - but if everyone makes a noise and makes it clear they’re only supporting him because of what Labour have become, then the Tories won’t take anything from that. If we want to stop the 42 Days legislation, we need to start now, and we need to show that it’s everyone. It’s our last chance.

So fetch the megaphone…

A Noble Endeavor

I agree with Ali entirely over the following:

I do not exaggerate when I suggest that this, if handled correctly, could give Labour the chance to race ahead again. It is of monumental proportions

but over effectively everything else we differ.

I must firstly emphasise further the point made aptly by Ali, as there is little other place to start: this is a stunning move which I can think of no precedent for. It is unquestionably an exercise in grand-standing and as far as can be determined was entirely unexpected by anyone save Davis himself. I also feel that it would be hard for Davis to return to the high standing he achieved, but differ in there being much uncertainty over whether the Tories will offer support, given that Cameron has wished him luck but has apparently pledged no assistance.

Ali suggests that this makes a mockery of the principle of parliamentary democracy, but I would suggest that yesterday’s vote made it clear that the Labour Party was not interested in winning the argument but instead enforcing Brown’s will. Quite simply I doubt severely that the number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who were opposed to the measure numbered 37, just as strongly as I doubt that the government’s announcement of a vast increase spending on Northern Ireland was coincidental.

What brought Brown victory yesterday was not winning the argument, indeed it was not even the public electing a set of petty authoritarians to act as their representatives. The problem lay with the Whip System, which results in an over-powered executive capable of forcing through even this, the most sinister and muddled piece of legislation to encounter parliament since Blair’s attempt to make it 90 days. Quite simply the executive being able to bring about the ruination of all within the party that oppose it gives it an excessive quantity of power, allowing it to threaten all those that wish for advancement with their hopes being dashed should they opt to follow principle rather than party.

Ali suggests that Parliamentary votes are a matter of conscience. I argue that they should be.

So David Davis decided not to let the matter stand and took a radical approach anticipated by no one. This certainly unsettles many, but I do not consider this to be an instance of egoism on the part of Davis, nor do I consider it “disgraceful”. No egoist in their right mind would abandon the second most powerful position in a party almost certain to reach power on account of a law which could be over-turned upon them reaching power. No, Davis has clearly been affected by the mood of the nation seemingly being in favour of the measure and intends this campaign to be one of scrutiny being placed upon the relationship of state and people. Although this was certainly of interest to Cameron regardless it is worth considering to what extent Davis shaped this distinct focus of theirs and worth observing how things shift now that he has departed.

My respect for David Davis was great after witnessing his firm and robust defence of our liberty during the debate but now my feelings have solidified into outright admiration. It is at moments such as this that I am pleased not to be a partisan. This is certainly an approach that anyone bearing their own political positioning in mind first and foremost would not have taken, but others would do well to follow. Are we to understand that the doyenne of the hopeful leftists, David Miliband, who recently wrote an article for The Times about radical liberalism and social democrats truly was in favour of this draconian piece of vicious statism? Far more likely that he and many others like him were wary of destroying their professional futures by opposing something which was pledged in no manifesto {as Davis mentioned in his fine speech} that somehow became a key policy over which there could be no negotiation.

This is the sort of system that is antithetical to earnest liberalism: the collective body subsumes the individual and this system exploits human self-interest at the cost of liberty. As any liberal knows the appropriate response to such tyranny is to overthrow it and we can but hope that Davis is the spearhead of such a revolution. I even find myself able to forgive him for using a slippery slope fallacy in his speech, for what have the government done save witness a 28 day detention approved and then attempt to force through a lengthier period that lasts six weeks? They used the original as a launch pad rather than accepting defeat over the matter and given this the only plausible response is that the government wishes to be able to imprison people without trial for as long as they could get away with in parliament.

Their motivations may be benign, they could have our national interest at heart, but this is not the appropriate approach to take to the relationship of state and individual. If there is any truth in human rationality this will be revealed in the further national discussions which occurs as a consequence of Davis’ noble and bold move.

Like a falcon from a cliff, today the Gledhill Plan for Electoral Reform gracefully but lethally swept atop the sea gull’s back of a great British political conundrum and devoured the unsuspecting creature mid-flight.  (Or, in marginally less dramatic terms, I wrote a blogpost for Scribo Ergo Sum.  But the point remains: I have solved the crisis of electoral reform once and for all.)

In previous years, I have tried to grapple with the issues of House of Lords reform and proportional representation for the House of Commons.  In both cases, I have found the status quo intolerable.  The House of Lords, as I see it, should be a revising chamber, designed to make legislation better.  It should be full of experts in a variety of fields (…hopefully including law…) and it should be apolitical.  We have a political chamber for Punch and Judy politics - for soundbites and grandstanding - but we desperately require a chamber than can effectively fine-tune the inexpert Bills sent up from the Commons.

The electoral system for the Commons is flawed.  At current levels, Labour can receive the same percentage of the vote as the Conservatives and find themselves with a parliamentary majority: the Tories need a 10-point lead over Labour to gain a wafer-thin majority.  This is why Brown is safe (for now): he would probably still win a majority if there was an election tomorrow.  It is also why the SDP/Alliance managed to poll one percent fewer votes than Labour in 1983 and yet receive a tenth of the number of seats in the Commons.  The First Past the Post system is flawed in that it favours regional support over national support.  One can tweak constituency boundaries (and we must, with urgency!) but the fundamental fact remains that it is an imperfect system that can never be successfully resolved.

The alternatives to the First Past the Post system all have one common flaw, stemming ultimately from a flaw in the FPTP system: FPTP delivers strong majorities.  By default, then, those who advocate more representation are effectively calling for weaker government.  They are calling for the end to a kind of politics where total power is swapped every few years in favour of a system where nobody has very much power for very long.  As the Jenkins Report suggested, the best of an imperfect bunch of voting systems is a hybrid which retains a constituency element and supplants “top-up” MPs from a party list into Parliament in order to make up numbers.  This would give more reasonable results; would keep governments on their toes a lot more, and would test the will of the electorate.  Very soon we would either return to a two party scenario, fearful of weak coalitions, or we would experiment with many parties, despite weak coalitions.  Time would tell.

The hybrid system has benefits beyond its auspicious start as the “least worst” alternative.  The party list element could be hugely beneficial for British politics, with two very good reasons.  Firstly (for the sake of structure, not importance), it would allow good politicians to be selected by parties instead of constituencies.  This sounds terribly undemocratic, and I suppose it is, but some people are essentially unelectable: the list system gains their talent without sacrificing a safe seat for the cause.  Politicians not interested in maintaining constituency links, or those who prefer to stay in London full time, might be better placed on a list system than in constituencies.  Voters would be better served by them.

Secondly, it would remove the need for appointing potential ministers to the Lords as a bypass for elections.  Gordon Brown’s Government of all the Talents fell rather flat both because of the GOATs’ lack of support for him and the whole government’s eminent talentlessness.  Cameron’s pushing for Sayeeda Warsi to become Baroness Warsi also demonstrates the need to redefine who should go in which chamber: she is a party political appointee, seeking a cabinet post.  The list system would get her in the correct chamber, and would remind everyone that she failed in her attempts at getting elected.

Now that we have fixed elections to the Commons and have ensured by the list system that people who should be in the Commons manage to get there, we turn our attention to the Lords.  As I have stated, the House of Lords should be a revising chamber.  It should be free of party-political point-scoring: its role is to receive what it is given from the elected Commons and make it better.  I have reservations about the Parliament Act, but its existence ensures that the elected chamber is superior.  The Lords, therefore, should not need party affiliation or whipping.  The lush red rows should be filled with various experts who wish to make better law - there must surely be more than a few hundred of them around!

I propose, therefore, a fully appointed House of Lords.  There should be an independent vetting process, and Peers should be reassessed for suitability every few years.  If a member attends just a handful of debates in a year, they should be deselected in favour of someone engaged with the job.  The Lords would have to pay a salary, but require some work in response (a degree of committee work, perhaps) while leaving enough time in the week free for members to pursue outside interests.  A standards board would ensure money was not changing hands illegitimately, and limits would be set on exactly what outside interests members could engage in; any illicit behaviour would probably be preferable to party influence and whipping at any rate.  The Lords, therefore, would operate as the revising chamber it should be, and current politically-motivated appointees who are too inept to get elected would have a home in the Commons through a list system.

As with any electoral reform, this has its drawbacks.  But they are much less in number than the current system - and the mess the Lords is currently in does not need elaboration.  By combining electoral reform of the Commons and total reform of the Lords, this proposal would deliver a joined-up package of government that would work far better than the one we have today.  Crucially, there would be greater democracy and also better law-making rolled into one neat little package.  Find me any proposal that would come close to being as lovely as this, and I will lay off the wildlife metaphors for a week.  Until then, though, I present to you the Gledhill Falcon Plan for Electoral Reform.

Due to my near total disconnect with the news over the past few days, as well as in order to evade another leviathan comment, I shall address the issues raised by Douglas here in my first post proper for far too long.

It occurs to me that the part played by environmentalism in the Green policy book is often more minor than you would imagine. It occurred to me years ago that at times they were effectively socialists devoid of any connection to Marx beyond a focus upon the “Environment”, with even that being entirely other to his understanding of it. Ali, our resident critic of the party suggests that “but also that a heavy tinge of green is ladened on,often for no reason” but my suggestion would be that this is more a matter of form than anything else. They genuinely care about social justice but their purpose is environmentalism so all else seems rather off topic. In order to make it part of their remit they must perform some occasionally rather uncomfortable and somewhat tenuous stitches to their ideology but that is something that should cause you to pity their predicament rather than dismiss their suggestion. So long as the policy is sound that it’s presentation is through an inappropriate green filter is rather an irrelevance. When the Greens talk of matters rather unrelated to environmentalism I agree with them entirely, for instance with effectively ever suggestion that Douglas lists. Occasionally the two inter-lock to result in a truly glorious fusion of pragmatism and environmentalism that makes of a potentially highly confrontational ideology a firmer position for consensus politics than most parties could ever hope for.

Douglas’ comparison to the Liberal Democrats was illuminating here and it is worth bearing in mind that that party is a union brought about by the threat posed by two parties being upon the left that were not Labour rather than any great love amongst the Liberals and Social Democrats. So if it had been the environmentalists who had joined the SDP rather than the once great, longstanding Liberal Party I suspect that the outcome would have looked much like the Greens do today. They are concerned with social justice and various suitable things of that nature and have effectively become cuddly socialists.

Ali’s second criticism of them was a far finer point and one which related to the pragmatic practicalities of their political existence, rather than their guiding philosophy. I consider the latter to actually be more sound than that of many of the far more popular parties, including those which are represented in our parliament. As ever, though, such things are not decided by amateur political theoreticians but instead the public. Popularity is what matters here and we should consider the actual chances of them reaching power, or at least a position of greater influence, rather than merely whether their manifesto is suitably consistant and pretty.

So it is stated: “The principle of Greenism has been adopted by every reasonable party,” which is entirely true and a phenomenon severely underrated and underconsidered. This is not the place for that, though and I shall return to it later. For the time being let it be known that I could not agree more. Here, however, we reach a point of discord: “and the Green party should recognise its role as a pressure group is diminished by seeking electoral success. They sacrifice the cause for the sake of ego, which is a great shame.”

Now firstly let us deal with the notion that the Green success makes their involvement with the political decision as actual potential operatives rather than external influence imposers an idiocy and entirely egotistical. If all were as presented then I would go further to suggest that they are now superfluous and, for the moment, need not exist. This would be true if all of the other parties truly had embraced environmentalism but, as Ali puts it, “The principle of Greenism has been adopted”, while in many instances what is lacking is the policy. This leaves them, at least, with work to be done.

This could be done by serving as a pressure group but this risks them becoming one amongst the multitude. Many had attempted to raise and emphasise green issues but it must be remembered that the reason that they are the fore of British politics in the way they are can be linked back to the initial effort of the Greens to crack electoral success. In the 1980s they shocked all with their success at local elections, one similar to and often compared to the UKIP insurgency at the last European Parliament vote.

This was a high tide for the Greens but it also brought an issue almost entirely brushed aside by the mainstream parties to the fore and laid the path for the cross-party consensus {at least in rhetoric} upon matters environmental.

Very well, it would then be said, they were necessary historically then. They had their purpose and it was served and we would not be where we are without them. The public does not desire them to progress and as such they should cease to approach their activism as they have and act as do others. Besides from the obvious weakness of most other special interest groups operating without deep party ties {and the feebleness of even them when discussing the Liberal Democrats} there is another, more meaty point. The public may not be against the Greens, but instead the system.

Another piece by Hari seems worth referencing here and given that the Greens are receiving my consideration in the Mayoral election solely because of an alternative to the ghastly FPTP system being in place. So please give this a read and mull over the possibility of the Green Party being worth sustaining simply to keep ticking over until a proportional replacement is introduced. Under the current system their hopes of cracking parliament are based around the increasingly futile dream of taking Brighton, the sole location in the country where they have established themselves as 2nd place.

In other European nations though there have been established Red-Green Alliances but this snug fit largely depends upon a system other than the distorting filter of First-Past-The-Post being in place. Without it the results are obvious and immediate here: Livingstone and the Greens are already open allies. Some similar arrangement being made in parliament is easy to imagine.

Perhaps the chances of FPTP being altered are slim. It is doubtful that pressure for it from yet another party that would benefit immensely were it to be introduced will do much to ease this or increase its likelihood. But if it does get changed the notion of a Green Party being swiftly pulled together purely for the occasion seems rather preposterous.

Although the success of the single-issue rush staged two decades ago will not be repeated under the present system a party steadily building its local support and making all efforts it can to hammer out some form of policy between environmentalism and socialism in the interim between electoral reforms that will show their popularity for what it is rather than what the FPTP reveals and then build upon it seems not an entirely disagreeable sight.

Certainly more pleasing than another baying noise machine that acts entirely without democracy, internal or otherwise, and operates entirely in order to alter the minds of already elected officials rather than making efforts to convince the public as a whole. There need not be a choice between technocratic and populist Greenism but I certainly know which I prefer.

Yesterday, Ali intimated he felt Sian Berry, Green candidate for London Mayor, had no policies outside of environmental issues. Actually, his words were:

“Sian Berry’s Green gang have a sensible little set of policies, but they are decidedly narrow-minded. I want a mayor who wants to run London, not just its airspace and green fields.”

This isn’t entirely fair. A brief glance at her campaign website or her blog will demonstrate otherwise. While (as you’d expect of a Green Party candidate) there is a heavy green tinge to her manifesto, a large part of it is concerned with social justice and other policy areas. Thus:

“People who think social justice and poverty are not ‘Green issues’ are wrong. You can’t have one without the other - a Green London is a more affordable London.”

Often, her policies attempt to challenge social problems through green solutions - certainly novel, and expanding the manifesto beyond “airspace and green fields.” Take, for example, her stance on insulation. Berry would, “roll out a massive programme to give free insulation to every home in London.”

The logic behind this is twofold. 40% of carbon dioxide emissions come from energy lost from homes. First off, this is bad for the environment, and so Berry, as a Green, wishes to reduce the amount. By providing insulation for all homes, she would ensure that this happened.

At the same time, it is often poorer households which suffer from heavy heatloss. Unable to afford proper insulation, lower-income families tend to have to devote larger proportions of their incomes to heating their houses - either that, or they simply get cold. Berry thus also addresses a social justice issue, fuel poverty, with this policy as well.

Meanwhile, others of Berry’s policies have, as far as I can tell, no enviornmental content, but much in terms of social justice. From her list of plans for a, “greener, more affordable London”:

Increase the affordable housing requirement in the London Plan to 60%.

All public employers to pay a living wage of at least £7.20 and robust pressure to be put on private employers to match this.

Student discount on public transport extended to pay-as-you-go.

Demand the write-off of housing debt so London can get building social housing again.

Affordable business premises for local businesses in all new large retail developments.

I don’t detect a single environmental policy - what I presume Ali was referring to with “airspace and green fields” - in that section of the list. It’s all social justice related - often to the left of Labour.

If I had a vote in this election (which, despite being a politically aware Londoner, I don’t, being some two weeks too young…) she’d get my second preference, I suspect.

Actually, while we’re on the Green candidate, the same can probably be said of the party on the whole. Of course, they have a heavy environmental bias. They are a Green party, they believe green issues to be the most currently pressing, and were founded to combat them.

But in they are also a socially liberal, centre-left, democratic party with distinctly socialist leanings - and who, for me at least, form an increasingly preferable alternative to the Lib Dems as a left-wing alternative to Labour. A short list of some of their policies that usually don’t make the headlines includes:

• The decriminalisation, then legalisation, of drugs for recreational purposes.
• The “democratisation” of the banking system with the creation of a “network of publicly owned community banks.”
• The creation of a “Citizen’s Dividend”; that is, an unconditional, non means-tested, weekly payment made to every citizen whether they are working or not. This would replace benefits such as Job Seeker’s Allowance, as well as replacing personal tax-free allowances, and attempt to eliminate the “Poverty Trap.”
• Increased income tax and progressive corporation tax.
• Increased trade union rights and renationalisation of the railways
• Removal of the monarchy from the constitution, PR and an elected House of Lords.

See what I mean?

Sian Berry, and the Greens in general, are always going to care more about environmental issues than anything else when it comes to politics. It’s why the party was founded, it’s why (most of) its members join. But to claim that they’re concerned only with, “airspaces and green fields” - or whichever trite phrases a commentator might chose to dismiss them with - is both unfair and grossly ignorant.

But of course…