The Green party is a frankly irritating party which has managed to carve itself a little slot in politics. It is supposedly somewhere to the left of Labour or in the centre – depending very much on how you pronounce quinoa.
It is really no surprise that Peter Kellner recently found that it has borrowed around half of its support from people who voted for Nick Clegg and got Dave in 2010. Many of them will be optimistic young people who will find themselves let down again in the same way that they were when the Liberal Democrats went into government with the Tories and put up their tuition fees.
More recently, however, we have started to see the Green party coming after our vote. Somehow, it has managed to establish this ridiculous narrative that they are actually more progressive than the Labour party.
There are three key things to remember here.
First, the Labour party in government created the Climate Change Act to set us on the path to reducing carbon emissions, which introduced feed-in tariffs, which set up a department headed by Ed Miliband, not just to keep the lights on but to do it in a way that seeks to tackle one of the biggest threats we face. We insulated homes and championed progressing to a green economy.
Second, it is the Labour party in opposition which, with Caroline Flint at the helm, has fought hard to improve the energy bill, has challenged the energy companies, pledged to reform the energy markets and pledged to set a 2030 power decarbonisation target.
Third, it was the Labour party which set up the Department for International Development, which took strides forward in improving the rights of minorities with the Equalities Act and which improved workers’ rights and implemented the minimum wage. It was us, and nobody else.
We are the party which deals with the issues Green party voters care about, and we are actually in with a chance of forming a government.
Scratch below the surface of the Green party and what do you find? Other than breathtaking incompetence, you get a leader who thinks being on benefits in Britain is worse than being poor in India, a spokesperson accused of transphobia, and a candidate who appears to think knitting is more important than speaking to voters.
The Green party would legalise the drugs which cause so much harm in our communities and introduce policies that would push a family holiday even further out of reach for many.
They would even see us withdraw from Nato and take the meat out of your Sunday roast.
For a model of a Green world just look south to Brighton. There you will find lessons in how not to conduct industrial relations, how to cut local services in a way that shows disregard for common sense and rubbish piled on street corners. It sounds more like the 1980s than the 21st century – anyone who follows Steve Bassam on twitter will be aware of the trouble they are causing.
Contrast that with a Labour council in Redbridge which, under the leadership of Jas Athwal and Wes Streeting, has already delivered half of its manifesto commitments since May 2014, improving sport facilities, libraries, introducing free parking and still on track to build a new swimming pool. That, frankly, is the Labour difference.
So let us help get the message out about what we did and will do.
It is a clear choice between a progressive Labour government and a Conservative one whose leader wants to ‘cut the green crap’. Let us remember there were 17 seats in 2010 where if, the Green vote had voted Labour, we would have won. With the stakes so high this time we cannot afford to let that happen.
Next time you hear the Green leadership attacking us to further their own interests, throw a lettuce at them – and point out that people in this country cannot afford another five years of Tory government.
———————————
Jay Asher is a member of Progress. He tweets @JayAsher3
———————————
The more rattled the establishment get, the more attractive you make the Greens sound. Why not legalise drugs, the intention is to reduce harm and save lives. I didn’t actually join the Green party because of their Green policies, but because of their anti austerity, anti growth at all costs and anti consumerist stance. As well as radical policies like citizen income and renationalising. There are no labour policies that come close.
I thought the Green Party might be a credible alternative to Labour so I started reading its policy documents. These include shutting down state primary schools with a connection to the Church (even if, like the one my daughter goes to, they cover the walls with Stonewall posters) and regional (yes regional) import and export controls IN THE SHORT TERM. And I’ve only just started scratching the surface.
It appears that expensive commitments (unrelated to need) like the citizen’s income will be funded from taxes on an economy substantially based on homeworking. The policy document is a bit vague about what sort of homeworking (it may refer to the ‘informal economy’, so maybe selling drugs or growing vegetables, or perhaps home weaving), but I guess it would appeal to hippy trust fund kids and those with large estates.
Alcohol would be heavily taxed and drugs decriminalised!
Take a look! http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
It sounds like fiction, but it’s true.
Please do follow Jonathan’s excellent advice and read the Green Party Policy website he links to. You will very quickly see that glib phrases such as “shutting down state primary schools with a connection to the Church” are a travesty of the GP’s actual policy:
Faith Schools
ED170 Education should include a celebration and recognition of religious and cultural diversity and spirituality. Education should encourage critical engagement with, and non-dogmatic exposure to, diverse, sometimes competing, worldviews and beliefs – whether based on culture, religion or spirituality.
ED171 Within that framework the Green Party recognises the right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
ED172 We recognise the importance of human values and the moral dimension in learning, and the role they play in different belief systems.
Policy
ED173 We will seek to cater for these rights and needs through ensuring that children and young people can practise their faith in schools, for example by providing prayer space for those who need or wish to practise their religion regularly.
ED174 At the same time we will abolish the requirement for a compulsory daily act of worship. Schools which choose to continue to hold acts of worship will provide an alternative activity for learners who choose not to take part. Pupils who do not participate in worship will not suffer any form of discrimination.
ED175 Religious instruction, as distinct from religious education in understanding different religions may only take place outside of school curriculum time.
ED176 No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.
ED177 Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local Authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.
ED178 Opt-outs from equality and diversity legislation will not be allowed for faith schools and they will not be permitted to promote homophobia or transphobia on the grounds of religion.
‘It sounds like fiction’ – indeed!
Tim’s election’s of policies is misleading, but also indicative of the contradictory gobbledegook of Green Party policies – on so many issues, it either tries to face all ways at once or betrays signs of factionalism, depending on your point of view.
Policy ED 176 says:
ED176 No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.
Couldn’t be clearer, though I agree some of the other policies muddy the water.
This is similar to the section on disability that commits to the social model and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, before saying that there will be no closures of special schools, which is contrary to the Convention, and other Green policies about integration of pupils with learning disabilities and disabled pupils more generally.
DY600 There will be no compulsory integration of individuals (or abolition of ‘special schools’).
Other policies refer – in medical model style – to ‘the able bodied’ like some 19th century homily, showing that either the commitment to the social model is skin deep or sincerely shared by one section of the Green party but not by others. The lack of editorial coherence (and policy focus) is a serious matter that the Green party should address, as so much of what it is putting forward appears incoherent and contradictory.
For me it presents a picture of a party trying to say all the right things to its narrow constituency of disaffected Labour activists and people who understandably want a reassuring and straightforward message from the Left. In fact, despite some excellent food policies (as one would expect) many of its policies lack coherence and meaning.
Personally, I think this is a shame. The reason I looked at the Green party policy site is because I wanted something credible on the centre left, with an environmental focus, as a spur to a realignment in Labour away from Progress. What I got was the mouthings of a bunch of sillies.
You know what, I have, and your description of them really doesn’t reflect what’s in there.
Far from being an expensive commitment, within the correct tax framework a citizen’s income is far more affordable and effective than our current system. It addresses “need” directly than the current system with it’s numerous black holes, for instance free school meals only reach about 40% of children who need them and adults can find themselves too ill for JSA but not ill enough for ESA leaving them nothing to live on. Those who don’t “need” it refund it through the tax system which, as everyone already has an effective tax free personal allowance, can be simplified.
But why am I explaining? You’ve posted the link, you can just go read it properly rather than using a right wing crib sheet.
The things the Labour party has done to ‘tackle’ climate change are laughable. The ‘rubbish piled on street corners’ sounds more in tune with the bin men strikes under a LABOUR government in the late 1970s and if anyone thinks the Labour party will do anything to tackle the problem of austerity and provide real relief to ordinary people in this country then their spin machine seems to be working much more than most are giving it credit for. Public ownership and a real commitment to pacifism and a future are only being proposed by the GP at the moment.
Oh and it’s not the Cold War, nuclear weapons? Lets take £100bn from that, maybe?
No mention there of Labour’s record of allowing the Tories to push through the bedroom tax, just one example of neo-liberalist leanings in Labour. Also, no mention that their proposed increase in the minimum wage is to a derisory £8 by 2020. Far from people trusting the future to Labour, the Party has enough history in power or opposition for people to shy away from voting for them based on their past conduct. The Greens have only policies for the future and it looks like some in the electorate are disenchanted with ConDemLab to want to give the Greens a go. The article states forcefully that voting for the Greens will let the Tories in. So Labour won’t want to go in coalition with the Tories then, eh?
As Labour didn’t have a majority (that’s why they’re in opposition, not in government) and the LibDems voted with the Tories, it was unable to prevent the Bedroom Tax from being made law. However, Ed Miliband has said that he will remove it.if elected.
I was a card carrying member of the Labour Party during the 90s until 2002; even spent time as chair. I was a shop steward for Unison; in fact the shop steward who put forward the motion that student nurses be paid the minimum wage if they were working on the wards only to have the motion ambushed by the Labour Party. I saw what Blair did, invading countries, rendition of people later found to be innocent, everything to keep his rich chums happy whilst abusing the poor. Like anyone who cared I left the party; I know the type who stayed in, cheering Tony on whilst he betrayed everything that wasn’t the rich in the hope that they’d be seen alright.
I don’t think I feel like being told I’ve betrayed the left by any of the treacherous Labour Party toadies. If your party wants to get anywhere, they might adopt the policies of the Green Party and attack the Tories/UKIP instead of the other way round. They won’t do that though, they’ll do everything to continue to help the rich, and to betray the people of this country; and people like you will cheer them on whilst they do it.
I seem to recall that Labour delivered the following: more PFI, no action on tax avoidance, introduction of internal market in the NHS.
Even now they are committed to more austerity.
Progressive – don’t make me laugh.
Same old same old Labour.
Attack the Greens because your own policies won’t win you anything.
Bloody hell, someone really is worried. If Labour don’t get in, don’t blame the Greens, blame Labour
Sorry have no time for this nasty politics, if it is one thing that will stop me voting for labour it is this this