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.

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.

A ComRes poll has Labour on its lowest ever rating.  John Rentoul’s comment is always worth a read.

More interesting, though, is that the Green party’s ratings are specifically listed.  They are currently on 5% - grabbing voters from the declining share held by each of the major parties.  The Green vote is constantly in flux, but this is a very revealing trend.  Far from the Cameron ascendancy, should the Westminster journalists actually be following the rise of the Greens?  Once they have a leader, a coherent image can be deployed and this trend might just break them into the mainstream.

Or, at the very least, have them classed in the same category as the LibDems, not bundled unfairly into the “others”.

Just a thought.

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.

Contrast Lucas’ mature campaign launch with the behaviour of Derek Wall. Derek, currently the party’s other Principal “Speaker” possibly fancies himself as a rival for the post. And so, he ponders into the debate. With invective, and little else.

A discontented Green Left activist forwarded the following from their e-mail list:

Caroline can spend £2,700 and employ an army of phone canvassers to win and
will get a Guardian editorial, no doubt singing her praises...
the new elction rules are very very damaging for internal democracy in our party.

Likewise while Caroline is a superb Principal Speaker, my opinion is that she
will be a very poor leader, if this latest episode is anything to go on..
I fear that we face a very difficult couple of years

Excuse me, Derek? There are some very bold claims there, with little to support them. Where’s Caroline going to get £2700 for an army of phone-canvassers, or indeed that army? And, indeed, where’s the evidence she wants them? He provides no grounds for his invective, and no evidence.

And likewise the other accusations. Caroline might get a Guardian editorial; so what? There’s no use implying something nefarious without actually supporting it. And, again, he doesn’t actually point out how the new rules damage the party, or how Caroline would be a poor leader - or how the next years might be difficult. Does he want to be ignored?

Presumably not, as he develops his whinge on Socialist Unity:

I am not posting this to say how wonderful my own political party is, in fact I am quite anxious about how the new leader/deputy leader structure will play out…my fear is it will take us down the European Green Party route of ‘nu green’.

Again, note the general lack of evidence anywhere. It’s frustrating; how can you have an argument with someone, when they provide no substance to argue with? Perhaps he’s trying to raise concerns about how having a leader will affect party democracy.

Fine. I’ll have that argument anyway, and put across my own view. Wall feels that a leader will be bad for party democracy; he led (hah…) the campaign against leadership so flattened in last year’s referendum. In evidence of this, he cites the centrism and centralism of European Green Parties entering coalitions with convervatives, against the howls of activists. He never cites reasons why we’d follow suit if we had a leader.

Or, indeed, that it’s leaders who are the problem. The Germans have co-leaders who function in much the same fashion as the current co-speakers over here - and they’re in coalition with the CDU. On the other hand, the countries where the Greens have allied with right-wing parties are function on PR, to an extent; and the parties were rarely as radical as the English and Welsh Greens as it was. They aren’t automatically comparable with the situation here. There’s no positive evidence to suggest Wall’s fears are justified.

And plenty to suggest they aren’t. Namely, the rules themselves - which don’t set the leader up as some great Uber-fuhrer of the party. They’re heavily accountable, can’t hammer their decisions on local parties, and exist as much to provide a coherent national narrative as to lead.

And, more relevant to the present, there’s no evidence to suggest Caroline would draw all power to herself. JimJay made an excellent point in his post on her launch:

I particularly liked the get involved section of the campaign site, with its focus on signing local members up as national members, and ensuring that supporters are paid up members by July 24th so they can play a full part in this important political decision making process.

For internal democracy to be meaningful it has to be both inclusive and vibrant in a very concrete way - I’ve no doubt some will be sniffy about the idea of any campaigning at all but without reaching out and spreading the discussion executive posts would inevitably go to those best placed to gain profile in the party, or factions within it, rather than allowing the members as whole to make genuinely informed decisions.

A healthy and active internal democracy is also something that attracts those who have not yet joined the party rather than repels them. Personally I don’t give any credit to the idea that internal democracy is something that should held in secret - because this inevitably ends up shielding the members themselves from discussion and does nothing to increase transparency and accountability of the executive to the members and of the party to the public.

The leadership debate fostered a lot of activity within the party, and showed just how healthy internal democracy was. Lucas’s campaign looks as though it’ll build on that - encouraging people to get involved in the party, and make democracy actually function as it should. Far from killing internal democracy, this could give it a great boost.

So, that’s your debate. The cynic in me isn’t convinced Dezpot (as he shall now be known) wants it. He stands little chance in any one-on-one election, and might well lose his position under this system. That’d explain the poor quality arguments on his part, and yet the desperate urge to make them. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt - perhaps he’s genuinely paranoid, instead.

Jim has a perhaps more balanced view of Caroline Lucas’ launch at the Daily (Maybe). Still fairly complimentary, though:

From my perspective members need to base their decisions in this election on a number of factors;

• whether they trust the candidate will do a good job. I think the vast majority of members will agree Caroline will certainly do that.
• whether the Candidate is strategically placed in a way that, by electing them as leader, they advance the party as a whole. In terms of giving Brighton Pavilion an edge at the general election this is clearly an important element in Caroline’s favour.
• whether Caroline’s politics and tactical vision encapsulate the views of Party members. I think this would be the area that anyone seeking to take Caroline on would have to target if they were to stand any chance of making a credible challenge. For me the message of a radical vision combined with no nonsense professionalism is extremely attractive, but I’m certain there are other points, both political and strategic, that can be made that members will have sympathy with, we’ll have to wait and see if anyone chooses to make those arguments.

Caroline would be, and is, an excellent leader for the Greens but I’m waiting until all the names are in the hat and the arguments have been made before I make my choice of who to support. I’m looking forward to seeing what others can come up with as Caroline has clearly set the bar extremely high.

Seems fair.

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.

And now, an announcement from the Green Party Centre for Popular Enlightenment, Propaganda and Agitation: the Observer has endorsed Sian Berry. Observe (hah…) their leader:

The traditional beneficiaries of protest voting - the Liberal Democrats - have failed to make an impact in the campaign. Their candidate, Brian Paddick, is undoubtedly a decent man, but he has been out of his depth as a politician. There is a stronger case to be made for casting ‘first preference’ votes for Siân Berry, the Green candidate. The party has already used its toehold on the London Assembly to wring green concessions worth millions of pounds out of the mayoral budget. A respectable score for Ms Berry, an intelligent and articulate advocate of her cause, would send a clear signal to whoever wins the mayoralty that London cares about environmental policy. It would also deprive the British National Party of fourth place, a small but notable step towards the mainstream.

But it is the ’second preferences’, used to top up the score of the leading two candidates, that will most likely decide who becomes mayor. Realistically, there are only two ways to use that vote: Ken or Boris. The unavoidable choice is between an incumbent whose record and character are familiar from many years in office and a challenger whose image and beliefs have been cynically manufactured for the campaign.

In short, in the cautious tones of a Sunday newspaper leader, advocating Sian first, and Ken second. This is a complete first for the Greens. That a national newspaper has endorsed a party candidate; that the party has more or less acheived blanket fourth party coverage; that they’re running at 4th in the polls all indicates just how much progress the party has made recently. A sign the new message appears to be getting through, perhaps…

I only hope it works out on polling day.

MAY 1st EDIT: From today’s Indy:

Sian Berry, for the Greens, on the other hand, has been an articulate, imaginative and effective advocate for her cause. With her programme for a greener London, with more cycle-lanes, cheaper public transport, more small shops and eco-friendly housing, she has come across as a forward-looking politician, committed to a better quality of London life. We hope she can continue to find a voice in the national debate.

So consonant are her priorities with those of this paper that, if we could vote for mayor today, we would place our first-preference cross against her name. This would underscore the importance of the environment to both London and to the rest of the nation. Then, and with rather heavy heart, it would be illogical to do anything other than make Ken Livingstone our second choice.

Gosh…

Apologies for my near total abscence for the past couple of days. And now, I bring you a proclamation from the Green Party Centre for Popular Enlightenment, Propaganda and Agitation (My name for it, not theirs…):

The contrast with the other London broadcasts, and old Green broadcasts, for that matter, is illuminating. On the first; aside from Ken’s, this appears to have been the only vaguely positively inclined broadcast. Paddick and Boris’ centred largely on the fear of crime, and how we were all going to die.  I mean, one looked like a scene for CSI, and the other was in black and white…

And, unlike Ken’s, this was more about the party and their policies than the individual candidate.

Would I be unfair to suggest the other parties’ broadcasts reflected the tone and content of their campaigns?

As for the old Green broadcasts; the contrast between these and this is rather strong. I can’t find any to hand, but in the past, they’ve essentially spent four minutes predicting imminent environmental apocalypse, floods, starvation, and everyone dying painfully. This, on the other hand, is at least far more colourful, and tries to talk positively about specific policies. I suspect it says something about the direction the party is taking…

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.