The SOC empire has obviously expanded during my absence to cover membership data and CIA lecture tours. If only I had stuck around.

Any other organisation might be able to have sensible debate and agree to disagree over whether candidates for leader can have a membership list to send their literature to members. But no, whether candidates for leader get to mail the membership is a question of core political values and if you don’t agree with me then you are an enemy of the movement.

Has nobody called in the Mediation Committee? They have black helicopters you know.

However, obviously I do believe it’s possible to have a sensible relationship with other parties where you can win useful reforms without selling your soul. Whether we always get that balance right or not - I don’t know.

GS I’ve seen people claim they paid for it themselves - is this not correct?

Also to clarify I don’t think you’re referring to SOC minutes but notes someone at the event took which is something quite different (hope that’s not pedantic, it’s just there’s a lot of misinformation going round and I think it’s useful for us all to ensure we don’t add to that inadvertently). I don’t think SOC discuss the funding of party positions.

My reading of the section in question was that she was to have paid assistance *once she was leader* which looked to me to be planning ahead (rightly) and a suggestion rather than a decision - as this body has no decision making powers and explicitly stated that it would make no decisions.

As to the style of the event - yes it looks horrible - but its a pluralist party and I think we need to tolerate these stylistic differences and discuss the substantive political proposals as they are presented at conference, GPEx or whatever other decision making body of the party.

Now clearly these people are entitled to take a course privately if they wish, but it seems they organised this secretly through the Green party Standing Orders Committee, and one of the topics they studied was how to deal with malcontents and traitors!

Who paid for the course? Who knew about it?

Then the SOC minutes suggest that Caroline Lucas should have an assistant paid for by the party to help her campaiagn for leader. but no such facility for the other candidate?

as a liberal I agree that issues are interconnected, but because the environment is a completely interconnected system I’m arguing that it is an inherently liberal cause. I’m disagreeing that anything except the environmental issues can be a ‘Green’ party cause, unless the Green party is more than just ‘green’ - and therefore not ‘Green’.

I don’t see how social justice, peace and non-violence and participatory democracy develop from theorising about weather and climate, but I do see how all four can develop from a concept of liberty.

As Doug points out, the Greens are not a party of coherent ideas, but a social movement with different strands and principles.

Of course there are going to be disagreements between the different sides, but does it really help your cause to be dishonest about their existence and try to prevent discussing them in the open with members of public? Surely you encourage participatory democracy by listening to contributions from allcomers, not just the small self-selection of preexisting members? Surely peace is more than a state of non-violence, but a society where disagreement is fostered productively from different perspectives and used as a tool to progress debate for mutual benefit?

I can’t say that this thread has adequately explored the strengths and weaknesses of your different visions to be able to feel reassured that any decision you have or will settle on is reliable or secure, and I can only conclude that the conduct of your internal procedures has some impact on your inability to appeal more widely to the public who you say you want to participate but actually prevent them from doing so.

If your words and deeds don’t match, then how will anyone trust you? If you say one thing one minute and then say the opposite the next, then how will anybody trust what you promote? If you don’t treat people equally, how can you be sure you are being treated fairly?

If you’ve got good intentions, that’s good, but it not anywhere near good enough.

Ecological sustainability
Social Justice
Peace and Non-Violence
Participatory Democracy

Greens see that these things are interconnected. For example, climate change is a social justice issue because its negative effects impact disproportionately on the poor. etc…

The whole point of this thread is that there has been some conflict in the party recently because some folks have a different vision of internal participatory democracy than others and this conflict spilled out into the open…

Now, If I could draw you into some discussion.

Localising energy production and a phased introduction/reduction of sources seems much more practical as a way forward, but that’s not so different from the other parties proposals and it would appear to contradict some of the claims to any radicalism in the Green movement. I also question the reliability of the publication of Green New Deal on grounds of independence and therefore whether the specific Green proposals are actually realisable in the context of current rates of growing energy demand.

Frankly, an overriding concern for the environment is exclusive to it being just one significant concern, and considering that all parties bear some heed to the factor means that the Green party has lost it’s existential reason for continuing as a political party. As a consequence we see the attempt to colonise ‘civil liberties’ and ’social justice’ as areas of policy concern, which hardly supports the argument that you have an independent intellectual tradition. Which leads us neatly on to the coalition question…

I do apply the same critique to other parties and I know many members of the Greens complain that the Labour party is just another right-wing conservative force derived from the divested interests of the non-propertied classes and explains why so many leading spokespeople for the social(ist) movement are pure establishment and dynastic figures (including the Benns, Toynbees, Milibands, Harpeople etc) who do more to block progress than to enhance it.

You make a basic mistake in your second to last paragraph in assuming a social movement has a single, coherent critical analysis and doesn’t comprise a coalition of forces and ideas - which anyway would contradict your earlier argument of non-exclusivity - so your description of Labour as derived (exclusively?) from the labour movement is a simple error of logic and fact and a perpetuation of the lie which has held it together depite their obvious and inevitable failures in power.

But there is plenty of space in politics for people and ideas which are just plain wrong or partly wrong - obviously - if only because all the wrongs eventually cancel each other out and we consign all the bad things to memory.

Quite where did you draw the conclusion a Green government would do that on day one? Not one recent manifesto has claimed we should shut down everything, immediately; nor has one claimed it’s necessary. What they have said is necessary is a shift from centralised and polluting means of energy generation to a decentralised system based primarily in renewables if we’re to prevent climate change becoming catastrophic.

We’d do so by localising energy generation while gradually phasing out older plants as they became redundant; a move shown to be perfectly realisable in recent publications such as the Green New Deal. And, of course, a move which would increase the freedoms of the population. They’d be free from paying distant corporations extortionate prices to heat their home and cook, and at the same time potentially raise money by feeding any electricity generated but not used into the grid.

So, the only Green government which would reduce the world’s population to eternal lentil consumption is that found in your contrarian imagination.

“Or are you saying that concern for the environment is one more factor to throw into the political mix, but you want to retain your independence and ability to criticise others?”

Why are the two mutually exclusive? It’s perfectly possible to argue that the environment is but one (immensely serious) concern among many, whilst retaining political independence. Our policies - on the environment and elsewhere - are clearly independent of other parties. The government, for example, seems to approach the environment as an excuse to raise taxes; we disagree, and thus exist as a seperate political entity.

“My point is that either the Greens are a political party, in which case your policy aims and arguments are largely inconsistent with your critical analysis, or a glorified lobby group, in which case your political ideals and actions are largely inconsistent with your criticisms of the other parties.”

The Greens are a political party derived from a social movement. We seek to implement what that movement’s critical analysis demands through practical engagement with the political system. So they’re hardly inconsistent with each other; indeed, without the latter, the former becomes automatically insignificant.

Would you apply the same critique to other parties originally derived from movements? The Labour Party was originally derived from the labour movement and trade unions, and so treated labour rights as its primary concern. Did they lose the right to call themselves a Labour party when they applied the same analysis that supported calls for those working rights to other areas of life? An idea can form part of a platform of policies without losing its validity as part of that platform.

so is what you’re saying is that concern for the environment overrides all and any other concerns?

In which case why not be open about it and say that on day one of a Green government you’d close down all nuclear, coal and gas plants in the UK, ban all cars and close down all oil and gas producing platforms because the freedom to travel and heat your homes and cook food is less important than standing against the tide of climate change and wailing. After all lentils are highly nutritious and it’s fun to huddle together in the back of a cave.

Or are you saying that concern for the environment is one more factor to throw into the political mix, but you want to retain your independence and ability to criticise others?

Because why should you be prepared to give up your tools of technological advancement and convenience or set an example by preventing your elected representatives from taking unnecessary long journeys to make fact-finding/agitation missions to the sun (or Brussels)?

My point is that either the Greens are a political party, in which case your policy aims and arguments are largely inconsistent with your critical analysis, or a glorified lobby group, in which case your political ideals and actions are largely inconsistent with your criticisms of the other parties.

All of which means the only reason to support the Greens is to register your protest. Yay!

A personal view from me Thomas comes from experience. You get individual Labour, Lib Dem and Tories who are all concerned about the environment. These individuals often take principled stances on the issues.

The problem for red, yellow and blue is that there is no consistency or principled decision making that guides their elected representatives on this. Let me give an example that is local to me.

I know that there are some Lib Dem councillors and members in Liverpool who are in the Green Lib Dems, but it must be difficult to reconcile your attempts to be “green” within the Lib Dems, with the practice of leading Lib Dems in actual positions of power http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/News/newsdetail_2008.asp

For those of us in the Greens, whatever our differences on other policy issues, there is a core philosophy that unites us and guides policy making. I think that is how I would respond to your point raised above. Others may have their own particular examples that could be shared.

I respect the ideals of concern for the ecology of our planet, but I question how that translates into support for a particular political party.

In placing those questions I hope to gain some greater understanding. But whilst I continue to be fobbed off and dismissed as someoone who is not with the programme I will not be won over or convinced. While Greens continue to make assumptions about what they stand for they neglect to make convincing arguments for offering them support and close themselves off from gaining wider support.

It is healthy for the debate for individuals to be confronted by opposing views because debate is the method by which political controversy reaches productive conclusions - which the Green Party certainly needs if it is to remain relevant and grow it’s democratic representation.

I don’t believe the suppression of dissent is good for democracy, so I hardly think that any attempt I make to provoke discussion on those areas of internal contention for the Greens should be avoided. Why is it that outsiders who are members of their potential audience are treated with contempt? Do the Greens prefer it if they are neglected by the wider public? Is it not a matter of concern that there is a notable lack of contributions made in this thread by non-Greens?

As a resident non-partisan I’ve cast myself as a critic of the Greens in order to open up the debate on them and their ideas, not to offer my own criticisms, however easy it might be to draw your own conclusions from the responses provided.

Factional infighting is a good thing because it addresses the subjects of dispute and resolves them, so any tentative steps the Greens can make to open discussion on their contentious positions, such as nuclear policy and the level of internal democracy, will indicate that they are maturing as a political force. Equally, the opposite indicates the reverse may be true.

But this:
Sunny, I don’t think I’m the first person here to question whether this thread is an exercise in navel gazing, an advert to propagandise for the Greens or a space for some real discussion about the relevance of the issues at hand, and if you read the comments you may get a sense of the suffocating insularity and lack of balance which the Greens suffer from.

is rather silly. This blog will host stuff on the Green party as it will over the other parties. You’re welcome to criticise all you want, but do it with some substance, yes? Don’t just start talking about how they’re useless wiothout actually reading what they’re saying. It just comes across as a bit lame to be honest. I can’t take you seriously when you say stuff like that.

then I’ll be happy to listen to you admit the weaknesses inherent in your own biases and hear why coalitions aren’t necessarily a good thing.

Its all about the context isn’t it.

“It is important we remain a “big tent” with Eco-Socialists, Radical Green Liberals, Green Social Democrats all playing their part.”

I think we can all agree on these points!

you said “there are elected Greens already. Many of them are extremely effective”

I said “There are a few elected Greens already, most of them are completely irrelevant.”

you responded to say that “Green representatives are disproportionately effective” and that this contradicts my inversion of your assertion.

I respond that some Green representative may be effective, even highly so, but this does not contradict my inversion of your assertion and neither does it offer any proof that your assertion was true - you only attempt to reinforce one assertion with another.

May I ask: to what you do you compare the proportionate effectiveness of elected Green representatives and by what measure?

I’m intruiged at the way you use the opportunity of the medium to throw insults at the proposer of stock questions rather than to answer them, but that must of course be the progressive way.

I’d prefer to leave criticism of Green policies to those best placed to do so, but it appears there is very little space for self-criticism only bickering - which is why the question of factional infighting is so interesting.

When prominent Greens like Caroline Lucas overhype the introduction of a speed restriction as ‘life-changing’ and ‘life-saving’ as an example of their impact, it does beg the question of their grasp on reality and actual relevance - I mean, what’s so different about the Greens? what’s so new about their approach that they can claim to have solved and resolved eternal conflicts?

If you want to talk about mature politics, Sunny, then I’ll be happy to listen to you admit the weaknesses inherent in your own biases and hear why coalitions aren’t necessarily a good thing. Or indeed what level of democracy is acceptable and how to define fairness and justice or whether Greens should be supporting the nuclear option, now or ever.

But it appears the those kinds of questions are too controversial even to be touched in a mature forum like LC!

Green representatives are disproportionately *effective* whether that’s the MEPs, MSPs London AMs or councillors. Just take the trouble to investigate for yourself, it’s probably better for you than just making things up based on prejudice.

Cooperating with other parties (which all the major parties do) means bringing to bear our unique set of principles and applying it to make a difference - that’s not dishonesty, that’s politics. Only an utter idiot would think that working with other people means you stop having your own beliefs and principles.

Well done.

See - I can invert your assertions with equal accuracy.

thomas, apart from the silly ad hominems dressed up as political debate, what is the point of such questioning if you can’t even be bothered to read any of the policies and criticise them on that basis? Should all smaller parties not even bother to exist? Do they not have a point? Would you prefer a democracy with only two major parties, so you can self-importantly declare their elected representatives make no difference? Is this some bizarre idea of political dicussion?

Actually the two Green reps on the London Assembly did have an impact - Ken needed them to pass his budget and thus worked with them on several policies. Yes, coalition building can happen, providing the political structures allow it.

Announcements that Greens welcome the chance to cooperate in coalitions as junior partners proves the Greens don’t represent any independent intellectual or philosophical tradition and you are just a subsidiary faction to other parties

Its called mature politics Thomas. It happens all across Europe (*shock horror*) in any democracy that has something like a proportional system.

Announcements that Greens welcome the chance to cooperate in coalitions as junior partners proves the Greens don’t represent any independent intellectual or philosophical tradition and you are just a subsidiary faction to other parties - which must show you to be the most dishonest party in the country.

There are a few elected Greens already, most of them are completely irrelevant.

See - I can invert your assertions with equal accuracy.

Secondly the Green core principles (which you can find on the website) actually explicitly state that the Greens *do not* have a monopoly on the truth - which must make us the most honest party in the country.