The election of a Leader and Deputy Leader at this year’s Green Party autumn conference was an important step forward. It signals our willingness to engage with the electorate on their own terms, whilst at the same time sacrificing none of the groundbreaking policies we have developed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This, however, is only just the beginning.
According to the New Economics Foundation, we have less than one hundred months to act on climate change before the situation reaches “a point of no return”. Political action is necessary: without tough laws, states and corporations will not stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere out of good will. Both Friends of the Earth and the Campaign Against Climate Change are pushing for a new Climate Bill that would require the UK to reduce its emissions by 80% by 2050.
Sadly, there seems to be little desire among the established political parties at Westminster to take climate change seriously. They don’t even bother talking green any more.
The opening lines of the Green Party’s policy statements declare: “The Green Party aims to create a just, equitable and sustainable society. We focus our efforts primarily, though not exclusively, through the electoral system.”
In order to stop climate change, we have to win Westminster elections and build a Parliamentary Green Party. It cannot be our only strategy: we must continue to build grassroots movements outside of elections, promote non-violent direct action, and work with our allies in the pressure groups and NGOs. But we serve a purpose they cannot fulfill: to exercise elected power for the good of humanity and the planet. That is precisely why Green parties exist.
Caroline Lucas MEP, Leader, Cllr Adrian Ramsay, Deputy Leader, and Cllr Darren Johnson, London Assembly Member, are all standing to become the first Green Members of Parliament at the next general election.
Assuming one or all of them win, we must look beyond 2010 and consider our long term electoral strategy.
The election of anything between 10 and 20 Green MPs would undoubtedly send a powerful message to the public, who would then vote for more: at Westminster, our parliamentary group would push the other parties into acting on the environment, on social justice, and on economic reform. But would it be enough to stop climate change before it is too late?
One hundred months from now, just over eight years, would take us past:
- a European election in 2009
- a general election in 2010
- a London election in 2012
- a European election in 2013
- a general election in 2014/5
- a London election in 2016
We should ask ourselves what gains we expect to make in each of these elections – not to mention the many local elections between now and 2016 – and what we should be aiming for if we want a fighting chance at turning the climate crisis around.
If a hung parliament occurred, for example, how many MPs would we need to form a governing coalition with one or two larger parties, our condition for joining being the enactment of a serious Climate Bill? At a London level, how many AMs would we need to negotiate green measures into the Mayor’s budget? Is it beyond possibility that, in the absence of robust challenges from the main parties, we could even elect a Green Mayor within the next three London elections?
If these questions demand ambitious answers, they are meant to. Electing enough Green MPs to make a difference at Westminster will require us to go far beyond our traditional electoral capacity. We can no longer be satisfied with slowly growing our vote in local council elections: in my opinion, we need to start identifying at least thirty constituencies where we will campaign to win within two general elections.
Going from having little or no presence in an area to being a contender, and then a front-runner, would need a team of volunteers, meticulous organisation, tight fundraising, a national media drive, and above all, a committed candidate. Pulling it off in ten, twenty or thirty constituencies would be nothing short of extraordinary: a giant leap forward.
But it can be done. We already have the policies. If we can find the candidates, and the message, then we can win.
We have no other choice.
Excellent post – couldn’t agree more with most of it. One for the netcast tomorrow, then…
Rayyan,
Your ambitions for are the party are interesting in that they are not the ungenerous ‘target to win’ ambitions of minor improvements, nor are they the naive war cry of expectation to be the next governemnt by majority, but somewhere in between. However i have some hopefully constructive questions:
Have you posted this to the party facebook, because how else are you hoping to foster discussion beyond the usual suspects of fellow green bloggers?
At the end of your post you say we have the polices we just need the message. In what way are policy and message different? You talk about impending climate change, so should i assume when you say we have the policies you mean about climate change, as opposed to, say, education or criminal justice? If we don’t have satisfactory policies around those, and I’m not making any assumptions, would that create barriers to your aim of identifying winnable constituencies?
How do you propose going about identifying those constiencies? Previous levels of green vote? likely victimhood of climate change? demograhpic evidence of potential green voting?
I’m right behind you in lots of ways and don’t wish to appear peddantic, but I think that by us all starting to think about those questions we can start to find the means to achieve your well stated aims.
Regards
Matt
Hi Matt,
I have posted this to the GP Facebook, and e-mailed a number of people in the GP.
A policy is “Bringing the troops home from Iraq”. A message is “Vote for us because we offer change we can believe in.” We wouldn’t simply reel off a list of policies on the doorstep whilst out canvassing. A policy is the substantive part of our plan, but the message is how our policies are communicated to convince people to vote for us so we can enact those policies.
One message we need to send out is that we can get elected and that politics is only going to work when we have common sense policies that people aren’t getting from the main three parties.
In terms of issues other than climate change, Green politics has never been just about the environment; to be Green means to recognise that resources should be shared and that people’s needs (both present and future) should come first, because we all have to live on this planet. This means egalitarian policies on education, crime, health, and all policy areas. If we can develop the communication of our policies to show that they are a step forward but also common sense, I see no reason why we can’t identify thirty target constituencies.
Previous levels of Green vote or prominent numbers of councillors would give us about six winnable constituencies alone, but we should also identify areas where progressive people would normally vote for either Labour or the Liberal Democrats but have become disillusioned by both, and where a split between those two would allow a third party (i.e. us) to come from behind to win it.
Again, I was hoping people with more knowledge of voter targeting and electoral campaigning would contribute to the debate and flesh out my proposals. The post was originally written to stimulate discussion on the basis of the urgency of the task ahead. Perhaps I should suggest an expanded electoral strategy at the next conference (the current one adopted in September is not specific about how many MPs we should have after two general elections).
Thanks for your comment!
As I’ve said on my own blog, 2 MPs would be a phenomenal achievement at the next election, but it should be viewed as creating a step change in attitude to the Greens. We need to be the 3rd largest party in UK politics in the next decade. It will take a tremendous effort, but I do believe we can achieve this.