 |
| I'd rather be among the trees... |
I am writing on the train back from Green Party Conference in Nottingham, seething emotions of frustration and resentment gradually settling down as we approach Birmingham.
The motion on the Green Wage Subsidy got referred back for further consideration.
I was pretty much expecting this, and referral back is better than an outright defeat because it can come back to the next conference, but it was frustrating. Again, as with the "Dealing with Dictators" motion, it was the form of the debate which annoyed me. I will not go in to details on that here, beyond that it was an extremely brief "debate", a travesty, unbalanced and stuffed with misinformation and misrepresentation.
Some of the opposition points were simply wrong: assertions that people will deliberately choose to become unemployed from their regular work in order to take up GWS work; blanket assertions that it was "bureaucratic", when in fact the scheme can be explained in a couple of paragraphs; the assertion that it would be abused (the same can be said of all legislation); the assertion that the "private sector cannot be trusted"; that it would create " a free pool of labour".
One objection made in the online discussion was that it was too long, and that the list exemplifying the green sector of the economy should be cut out. So some do not want actually to think about what is meant by the green sector, or by constructive work that increases the health of society or environment.
The proposer of the motion to refer back actually took the line " It's OK but needs amending; why not extend it to ALL sectors of the economy?" I pointed out that "all" included manufacturers of motor cars and arms. Even so, his view prevailed.
The objections misrepresent the simple plan set out in the motion. What will have to happen is that the motion will become longer and more detailed to meet all the objections. When it comes back, the reactionaries will then be able to say it is too long and too detailed, and refer it back again.
This game of Object-Obfuscate-Refer Back can be played out for years on the floor of Conference.
Rather than playing political games, it would be far more open, honest and "green" to have a fair debate. If there are people in the Green Party who prefer the present benefit system as is, who see no problem with high levels of unemployment, who prefer to keep people in a state of unemployment, and who do not perceive the need for an expansion of the green sector of the economy, then they should nail their colours to the mast, and fight their corner openly. Obfuscation and misrepresentation is not the Green way.
Policy formation in the Green Party is supposedly democratic. Our Conferences are the supreme policy creation body in the party, although the leadership can and does pick and choose which, of the thousands of policies that Conference has created over the years, they will present at any election.
If Conference is to be the supreme policy making body, it has to be efficient and fair. One problem with this Conference was that not enough time was allocated to policy motions. Another problem is that some chairs let debate run on too long. As a rule, two speeches for and two against is a reasonable target; sometimes, the longer debate continues, the more confused people become. The chair can use straw polls to find if conference is ready to vote, and also to find the balance of opinion. Sometimes debate goes on for ages, only to find that the vote is overwhelming in one direction. A small passionate caucus can hold things up enormously.
All this is a re-run of the Dealing with Dictators fiasco of 2010. As a result of that matter, the chairs are better instructed, and are much more careful to be sure that they take "for" and "against" speakers.
This present set-to has caused me to reflect on my way of working. I am an inventor, and inventors tend to work alone. I do try to discuss my ideas, but often they do not get any reaction until they come to Conference. I try to be brief and clear in my explanations, but maybe I do not succeed at that. Or maybe I'm too brief. I think that when I try to be emphatic, it comes across as aggressive. I just do not know, all I know is that I am failing.
Overall I simply cannot understand why greens cannot see that full employment through a work programme that heals society and environment and paves the way for full Citizens' Income is something to be welcomed, picked up and if necessary, improved. Have we been cut off from mainstream politics for so long that we just care about reiterating our core beliefs like a mantra rather than thinking of innovative practical ways to actually get them rolled out? Are we, at 40, getting a bit set in our old ways of thinking, are we getting stiff and fat, sinking into our slippers by the fireside of our old ways?
I've been in the Green Party for some 33 years. I was one of the first National Co-Speakers, was one of the first two elected District Councillors, my chairing at Conference seems to be appreciated. The contribution that I offer now is innovative, fresh, lateral thinking policies. But these consistently attract rejection from within some within the central regions of the party, and I do not understand the reason.
The temptation is to walk away. Yet I think the Green Party has a role to play, even in this benighted country with its democratic deficit, and even given the nerdy, introverted and dysfunctional aspect of the Green Party itself.
One of the Green Party's roles is to bathe naked in the river of political thought, leaving our clothes on the bank to be stolen by other parties. The better our policies, the better become the policies of the other parties.
It is still important for us to develop policy - and also to present it to the world. One idea is to try to pilot the GWS in real time, in an unemployment hot spot somewhere, where we have a critical number of activists interested in doing this. This would require a major effort, but it could be done, especially if we slip back into a third phase of recession, or if we begin to get food or poverty riots.
So I will try to hang on and work within the Green Party. But what I have learned from this is that I cannot act alone. If we are to get Green Wage Subsidy onto our Policies for a Sustainable Society, (the link is broken at the time of writing, let me know if it persists. Our website is flaky. *sigh*) we have to form a group of committed people, to counterbalance the forces of reaction.
Overall I simply cannot understand why greens cannot see that full employment through a work programme that heals society and environment and paves the way for full Citizens' Income is something to be welcomed, picked up and if necessary, improved. Have we been cut off from mainstream politics for so long that we just care about reiterating our core beliefs like a mantra rather than thinking of innovative practical ways to actually get them rolled out? Are we, at 40, getting a bit set in our old ways of thinking, are we getting stiff and fat, sinking into our slippers by the fireside of our old ways?
I've been in the Green Party for some 33 years. I was one of the first National Co-Speakers, was one of the first two elected District Councillors, my chairing at Conference seems to be appreciated. The contribution that I offer now is innovative, fresh, lateral thinking policies. But these consistently attract rejection from within some within the central regions of the party, and I do not understand the reason.
The temptation is to walk away. Yet I think the Green Party has a role to play, even in this benighted country with its democratic deficit, and even given the nerdy, introverted and dysfunctional aspect of the Green Party itself.
One of the Green Party's roles is to bathe naked in the river of political thought, leaving our clothes on the bank to be stolen by other parties. The better our policies, the better become the policies of the other parties.
It is still important for us to develop policy - and also to present it to the world. One idea is to try to pilot the GWS in real time, in an unemployment hot spot somewhere, where we have a critical number of activists interested in doing this. This would require a major effort, but it could be done, especially if we slip back into a third phase of recession, or if we begin to get food or poverty riots.
So I will try to hang on and work within the Green Party. But what I have learned from this is that I cannot act alone. If we are to get Green Wage Subsidy onto our Policies for a Sustainable Society, (the link is broken at the time of writing, let me know if it persists. Our website is flaky. *sigh*) we have to form a group of committed people, to counterbalance the forces of reaction.
We have got to get organised.
So if there is any Green Party member reading this post who wants to join in the process to provide the Green Party, and therefore the world, with a means to kill the two headed dragon of unemployment and ecological degeneration, please get in touch with me. We need a core of eight activists at minimum. That should be enough to overcome the frustration inherent in trying to introduce new ideas in the teeth of resistance from the Handbrake Tendency.
So if there is any Green Party member reading this post who wants to join in the process to provide the Green Party, and therefore the world, with a means to kill the two headed dragon of unemployment and ecological degeneration, please get in touch with me. We need a core of eight activists at minimum. That should be enough to overcome the frustration inherent in trying to introduce new ideas in the teeth of resistance from the Handbrake Tendency.
