It is a paradox that any distinctness preserved by having the dual principle speakers only reinforces their otherness and continues to minimise any potential appeal they may claim to posess and it is one that I don’t see them overcoming any time in the near future.

For the Greens to access the promised land of greater representation they must actually represent a wider segment of society than they current attempt, so it will be no wonder that they continue to languish in obscurity.

The lack of parliamentary representation for the Greens also does them no favours when it comes to any arguments they make for electoral reform, as their position is easily dismissed as self-interested rather than for the benefit of politics in general - they have nothing to lose, so they can only gain. What good are they for the rest of us?

Additionally their root and branch consternation at the (very real) inadequacies of our democracy tends towards revolutionary rather than reformist, which undermines the actual practice of politics as well as any confidence we may have in their ability.

So while I can clearly see the appeal of the Green Party to those who wish to build incoherent coalitions to gain power, frankly, I don’t see that their current philosophy or policies have any relevance, nice people they may nevertheless be. Any success they achieve can be put down to systemic failure whether at local or national level, not as a result of any qualities they demonstrate.

As far as the vast majority of the electorate is concerned the Green Party is a single issue fringe group of borderline relevance to their lives.

Until it can meaningfully articulate its policies in the context of ordinary people’s everyday existence it will remain as such. An informed analysis of sustainability is one thing; my job, my school, my health is something altogether different.

The Green Party could, and should, have a massive amount to contribute to the debate about our future. Messing around with an internal structure suggests it isn’t about to make a telling contribution.

Ceedee, I think that is a problem in itself. I’d challenge the notion of being different for the sake of being different, without the structure offering clear benefits.

What are the clear benefits of having two speakers versus on speaker? Shouldn’t this be more about getting Green Party ideas into the public conversation rather than being different for its own sake?

If you folks are serious about combining strengths across the Liberal/Left spectrum you could at least attempt some research before criticising!

While I think the problem is with the message, not the presentation, it does make sense for them to want to have another go at better presentation.

But a leader will mean a better quality of scrutiny of the party’s message. When that scrutiny begins to hurt, the question is will they work on the message, or blame the leader, and leadership in general.

In those circumstances parties like the Greens assume a far greater importance so they need to organise themselves accordingly - this seems like a sensible first step.

Sad it didn’t work. But it does come across as being engineered (1 woman, 1 man) as opposed to merit-based.