1. What
impact do you think the Green Party’s eco-socialist
policies have had on the party’s growth and how can that be sustained?
At recent hustings, candidates for External Communications were asked
to comment on ‘the elephant in the room’. If we were asked this
question we would say ‘socialism’. We do have eco-socialist policies
and yet we are taking seats from Tories. Alison asked on a councillors
group chat how they explained that despite being left of Labour,
councillor candidates are being elected in former Conservative wards.
The answer she was given explained that candidates focused on local
issues and taking action on matters pertinent to the local community.
The candidates didn’t draw attention to our policies. We will leave
you to take your own view on this approach.
However, when the next GE happens and we have target constituencies
in, for example, Sheffield and Suffolk, how will we deal with the
political inconsistencies that may be relatively simple to fudge
locally but far less so nationally? Will our leaders own and promote
our eco-socialist policies or will they seek to water them down the
way Labour has for fear of scaring off so-called moderate voters?
Could it be that the major parties are drifting to the centre and
rightwards because MPs are largely drawn from society's middle and
upper echelons? What are we doing and saying to appeal to working
class, currently unrepresented voters? If we are serious about social
and climate justice, we should advocate for working-class voters who
need political representation.
2. The recent Tory by-election defeats suggest
the electorate is
making their own decisions on strategic voting. How can the Green
Party intervene to turn that to its advantage?
The Green Party need to show where we stand on the political spectrum
and make our radical and necessary vision clear to the public. The
electorate is rightly mistrustful of the big political parties and
there is a sense that there is no real difference between them.
Working strategically with other parties at a local level is a matter
of much discussion; each local party will of course decide but we need
to be very wary of appearing to ‘align’ with political parties whom we
can find little to praise but plenty to criticise.
We need to publicise our plans for a sustainable future and outline
key strategies to make this achievable. We do not have all the answers
but we certainly have the right ideas and by joining an alliance of
like-minded organisations and mobilising our own members we have the
possibility of creating a massive social movement demanding change.
People’s Assemblies are a possible means to make decisions on how best
to plot a course for implementing policies to facilitate adaptation to
sustainable living.
3. What would be your priorities for campaigns outside election
periods that would raise our profile in communities, engage our
members and attract new ones? How could that be financed?
Our unique selling point is our ecological understanding of the web of
life which is manifested in slogans such as ‘there is no climate
justice without social justice’. We have a holistic vision of society
which makes us a revolutionary party. Capitalism is not compatible
with the creation of a sustainable society. We have a philosophical
basis and values that come with a belief that we seek a society that
is built for ‘the common good’ and we need to promulgate this
life-affirming life preserving message to the multitudes of
disaffected voters.
The more we inspire our members through campaigns at a local, regional
and national level, the more eager they will be to share our vision
with their friends and families. We can grow our party and a social
movement based on truth-telling and offer alternative nonviolent means
to bring about a society based on community building and compassion in
line with our eco-socialist politics. We could begin with hosting
local, regional and national People’s Assemblies outside of election
time.
4. How can the Party improve the way it
communicates its policies
to the BAME and white working class?
It is important that we have working-class people and BAME
representatives speaking to the groups of people we want to represent.
We have some amazing talent which is sometimes squandered on the altar
of wishful unrealistic party purity.
For example, we had a brilliant white working-class councillor, Dom
Armstrong in the North East, who is eloquent, clever and principled
and could have been a tremendous asset. Unfortunately, because he
could not support the Green Party's disregard for women’s rights he
illustrated his integrity and resigned, just as MSP Andy Wightman did
from the Scottish Green Party. We have also lost potential leaders who
had the qualities needed to vastly improve our working class and BAME
membership base and vote share. Some BAME representatives have left
because we have failed to address and prioritise institutional racism
adequately. To avoid these losses, we must accept that there is not
always only one perspective worthy of respect and support. We cannot
force everyone to see the world the way we do. Diversity is not simply
about identity but a difference of opinion too.
5. Should the Green Party review its policy on NATO in the light of
the current conflict in Ukraine and what would be your approach?
The Green Party is pro-peace and anti-war, however, we recognise that
there is such a thing as a ‘just war’ and when a sovereign country is
attacked, they are left with no choice other than to defend themselves
or to surrender to an aggressor. There are advantages and
disadvantages to remaining in or leaving NATO which require a thorough
debate and extensive input. We agree that Russia’s attack on Ukraine
has certainly raised new challenges and Sweden and Finland have both
made the decision to join NATO because of this. We think it is
sensible for the Green Party to re-examine our current policy in light
of the invasion of Ukraine.
6. The 24 hours news cycle means that contributions from our
spokespeople have to be rapid if they are to be given media space. How
can we manage that whilst maintaining democratic accountability?
We appoint spokespeople and we trust them to communicate appropriately
to convey our party position. When a spokesperson wishes to add a
different or additional perspective, they need to undertake to make it
clear that they are sharing a personal opinion and not that of the
party. In our view, it is not undemocratic to trust a spokesperson’s
judgement, it is a political necessity.
In instances where a spokesperson is asked to comment on an issue and
they feel they do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding it is
appropriate for them to refer the media request to another person,
such as the leader or deputy. They should also have access to
communications staff if support is needed.
7. Given that some Government policies such as privatisation and
reducing rights are a thread crossing different sectors how can
spokespeople cooperate on our overall messaging to ensure this is
addressed?
GPEx could certainly be instrumental in ensuring that spokespeople are
given timely inductions into their role which ought to include broad
policy-based messaging on fundamental issues.
We lack a culture of education which is important in other radical
left-of-centre parties. The implementation of a delegate structure
would facilitate an increase in political knowledge and understanding
of the origins and purpose of the Party. We think there is much to
improve in the engagement of members and local parties can play a
major role in enabling debate and encouraging the skills that are
vital for effective public debate for elected representative and
spokesperson roles.
8. How would you raise the international relevance and profile of the GPEW?
Tina recently attended the 35th Council of European Greens which is
working to enhance links and cooperation across Green groups around
the world. We are far more united and cohesive across national
boundaries than any other party as our aims have the same common
principles. It is through our Global Greens status that we can add our
collective voice and relevance to present a collaborative
international force for change which is mobilised for the common good.
9. The Green Party has recently encountered
difficulties in
maintaining a respectful and comradely debate on issues where there
has been sharp disagreement. What would be your approach to improving
the atmosphere in which these debates take place?
It’s important in politics to always ask yourself the question “Who
benefits?” It is clear to see that neither our party nor we as
individuals reap benefits from the stresses and strains of internal
fighting. It is the bourgeoisie and corporate capitalism who have the
most to gain from our internal strife and distraction from the real
opposition to the common good.
We can see that neoliberalism has wholeheartedly embraced Identity
Politics and has already monetised liberation groups for its own
purposes to present a progressive and enlightened front. If
corporations are supporting your politics, then it is clear your
politics are neither radical nor rooted in social justice including
economic justice. Identity politics are no threat to the neoliberal
order. While mainstream parties fight for corporate donations and
support identity politics we can present our radical eco-socialist
policies to the public who are rightly despairing at the
disingenuousness of those currently dominating the political class.
Politics requires a robust character and this is something people can
develop through being challenged to find agreement for their beliefs
and arguments. It is vital that as a Party we foster a spirit of
acceptance that no member seeks to harm another by holding a different
opinion and in fact we welcome opposition to help us improve our
thinking and hone our arguments. The intolerance of difference and
efforts to purify members’ views has impoverished our ability to be an
effective force for change, united on issues we do agree on.
10. How can we ensure a level playing field in internal
elections
when some candidates have the advantage of access to a national
platform and networks?
Life isn’t fair and politics certainly isn’t. The challenge of making
a selection system fair is not simple, and arguably not even
achievable through an election, particularly when some candidates are
well known. Political parties are like any other organisation, made up
of groups of people where relationships develop and a system of
patronage exists inevitably favours those more closely associated with
the most powerful. Despite having a seemingly ultra-democratic system
of ‘one member one vote’ this leaves us open to manipulation by a
relatively small number of people since currently the majority of
members are not engaged. The low level of member participation in
campaigns and elections is an issue we would focus on if elected.
We desperately need a delegate structure where people have to debate
their way through the local, then regional level before they attain
any influence at the national level. This would promote a more level
playing field and help develop more effective politicians.
No comments:
Post a Comment