Pandora misses the point
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.
They also seem to think that SOC were going to publish members details - which would indeed have been an unusual step had it been taken - which it wasn’t - because that would be weird.
Been reading Derek Wall’s blog - bloody hell, it feels Trotskyites at each others throats again.
One point though, doesn’t the Green PArty release say that they can’t release that dayta because of the Data Protection Act anyway? So why would someone brief this to the media?
I agree with your point Douglas, but isn’t it legally impossible? Perhaps the party needs to find other ways of starting a debate?
I hope some people who vote for Ashley aren’t simply Anti-Caroline. That’s what the RON (Reopen Nominations) option is for.
Sunny - it does need to find other ways of starting the debate, if only because this one’s been shut-off. For what it’s worth, though, I don’t know whether what (I think) was really proposed - allowing candidates to contact members, but also giving members the chance to opt-out - is actually illegal.
As for briefing - presumably someone who wants to undermine Caroline through anonymous distortion. I can name no names, but someone close to the other Principal Speaker seems likely…