Over the last week, I have been to several talks at Bristol's Big Green Week. It has been good, listening to thinkers and do-ers in the field of bringing mankind to its ecological senses. In fact, yesterday, after listening to Fiona Reynolds and Dan Pearson talking about Nature Deficit Disorder - the malign effect of separating humans from nature, and the benign effect of re-connecting them with nature - I actually felt the stirrings of primary optimism in my chest.
Primary optimism is distinct from my chosen optimism. A few years ago, I was suffering one of those times when you wonder if it is all a waste of time, that our rulers are hell-bent on exhausting the planetary resources in the name of profit, and that there is nothing that we can say or do to affect this process. At that time, I decided to deliberately choose to be optimistic, to keep looking for solutions, because the alternative was not just pessimism and inactivity, but also personal depression.
But yesterday, I realised that there are many many people who are quietly and successfully beavering away at making a better world, in every aspect of life, and that this is cause for optimism. I also realised that we have moved on immensely since I began doing green politics. Of course, it is happening much too slowly, but it is happening. Peoples' minds are changing, and only the immutable ideologues and free market fundamentalists remain fixed in denial, as is demanded by their root belief.
So the Big Green Week was good. But it has one big flaw - its disconnectedness from the current political situation. Apart from one reference from Caroline Lucas, I heard nobody dealing with the economic crisis that is engulfing the UK, Europe and the world. At the same time, yesterday, in the session with Caroline Lucas Patrick Curry and Polly Higgins, chaired by Jonathon Porritt.
In this session, the question was raised, on the platform, of why these issues, so obvious and so important to us, the middle class intelligensia, are of so little interest to the mainstream? Why, knowing what we know, do we not act? How do we raise the popular energy to make the transition to a green, sustainable economy? How do we change the culture, generate a groundswell of opinion that supports a way of living that does not wreck the planet?
I believe that the answer lies in solving the problem of unemployment by creating good work in the green sector of the economy. Philosophically, this means understanding that true work means increasing the order in our surrounding world, applying ourselves to oppose entropy. In practice, it means facilitating work in these areas of the economy :
1 energy conservation
2 renewable energy technologies
3 energy efficient goods manufacture
4 pollution control technology
5 waste minimisation
6 repair
7 recycling
8 water management
9 sustainable agriculture
10 forestry and timber use
11 countryside management
12 housing - new building and refurbishment
13 improvements to visual environment
14 public transport
15 education and training
16 counselling, caring and healing
17 community work
18 leisure and tourism
19 innovation, research and development
20 any business which passes a certain threshold in its environmental audit.
In political terms, it means changing the benefit system so that it behaves more like Citizen's Income.
I believe that these changes, as part of a broader anti-austerity package, an economic Plan B, This should be raised as a standard that everyone who disagrees with austerity can rally around.
By showing that ecology is about action, not just words, we can transform peoples' understanding of what Nature means for them. By showing that household incomes can rise, that people can actually create a happier world, and get paid real money for it, we can get a hearing.
I was unable to get this point across in the one brief question that I was able to put at the beginning of the week. At present, I am incubating a plan to actually create, with others, a pilot of the Green Wage Subsidy. This intent is again down to what I heard at a Schumacher lecture in the Big Green Week. Tim Smits said Just Do It. He also said that he is angered by negative people - the people who just love to say it cannot be done. In future, I am going simply to ignore these naysayers. They do not matter. What matters is that we should take practical, non-violent, action, to make the situation better.
Showing posts with label green party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green party. Show all posts
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Preventing the formation of Dictatorships through a framework of UN rules
I would like to debate here the substantive issues around the "Dealing with Dictators" motion that fell at Green Party Conference due to poor chairing. As the proposition is scattered around this blog with other issues, I am re-posting the rejected motion here, so that maybe we can get some real debate about the issues, rather than speeches from influential members saying in effect "I do not like this".
This does on reflection, seem to contradict my resolve to withdraw from the GP policy making process, but I think members who were not at Conference should be able to see what is wrong with the debating process, hopefully to avoid fiascoes in the future. Secondly, as I take this forward in other arenas, it will be useful to have it stress-tested.
This is the motion as presented, with minor improvements in [square brackets]:
_______________________________________________________________
Motion on Dealing with Dictators
Synopsis:
While the Global Index of Human Rights will add a steady, continuous pressure for all countries to improve their human rights, unfolding world events frequently demonstrate the need to restrain dictators who are acting against the interests of their citizens. At present the international response to dictators is ad-hoc, politically driven and inconsistent, depending on whether major powers regard the dictators in question as useful allies or trading partners.
The UN needs to set up a fair, open and pro-active approach to would-be dictators, aimed to dissuade them from progressing towards absolute dictatorships, and rewarding steps taken towards a more democratic and open regime.
This is based on sound psychology. It is well established that the best way to modify unwanted behaviour is to set a consistent and fair framework of punishments for unwanted behaviour and rewards for appropriate behaviour.
______________________________________________
Motion
Insert new IP 336 and re-number.
IP 336
The Green Party will press for the UN to set up a framework of international rules of governance that will help all dictators, indeed all rulers, to learn that certain courses of actions will certainly lead to unwanted effects on their freedom to act to the detriment of their citizens.
Specified forms of conduct that indicate a tendency towards dictatorship will be matched with a tariff of targeted sanctions which are applied in a measured, stepwise and consistent basis.
IP337
There are a number of identifiable steps on the road to dictatorship. The following examples are advanced as indicators of such a tendency:
1. Electoral fraud
2. Intimidation at the polling booths
3. Ignoring the result of a democratic election
4. Banning critical newspapers and media
5. Banning non-violent opposition parties
6. Imprisoning people for their beliefs
7. Use of torture
8. Violent suppression of peaceful demonstrators
9. Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator
10. Disproportionate spending on arms
11. Oppression of minorities
Each of these steps will be legally defined, and the question of whether the regime in question has committed them will be tested in a timely way in an international court.
IP338 Each step, or constellation of steps, will have a specific sanction attached to it. The targeted sanctions applied will be made appropriate to the specific case, will be recommended by the international court of law, and will be subject to ratification by the UNSC.
Examples of the tariff of sanctions are:
1. At the mildest level, increased intensity and frequency of inspections by UN rapporteurs will take place, and the regime will be offered education in the ways and advantages of democracy.
2. [Next,] tightening up of border [(customs)] controls.
3. Banning [of] opposition parties [may] lead to financial support to non-violent opposition parties whose aims are judged to be helpful to the welfare of the people of the country.
4. Ignoring the result of a democratic election [may] result in a ban in foreign travel for members of the regime.
5. Use of political imprisonment and torture could result in the regime being denied eligibility to serve on appropriate UN councils, for example, the Human Rights Council .
6. Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator could result in sanctions against the import of luxury goods.
7. Violent suppression of minorities and peaceful demonstrations will result in freezing of financial assets of the regime.
8. [Proven use of torture would result in a] ban on foreign travel for members of the regime, with possibility of arrest of such people if they do travel abroad.
9. Disproportionate spending on arms will result in a total ban on arms sales.
The sanctions will be cumulative and progressive, and will be withdrawn promptly, in reverse order, if the regime takes action to retrace its steps.
_______________________________________
The objections raised at Conference, both in the workshop and the plenary were as follows, and also amplified form the debate on this blog, are below. My responses are in italics:
Looking at it again, I can see that the language could do with smoothing out, but as there was no feedback in the inter-Conference period, this smoothing did not come about. I suggest that the 10 objections assembled so far all lack staying power.
OK. Open for comments...
This does on reflection, seem to contradict my resolve to withdraw from the GP policy making process, but I think members who were not at Conference should be able to see what is wrong with the debating process, hopefully to avoid fiascoes in the future. Secondly, as I take this forward in other arenas, it will be useful to have it stress-tested.
This is the motion as presented, with minor improvements in [square brackets]:
_______________________________________________________________
Motion on Dealing with Dictators
Synopsis:
While the Global Index of Human Rights will add a steady, continuous pressure for all countries to improve their human rights, unfolding world events frequently demonstrate the need to restrain dictators who are acting against the interests of their citizens. At present the international response to dictators is ad-hoc, politically driven and inconsistent, depending on whether major powers regard the dictators in question as useful allies or trading partners.
The UN needs to set up a fair, open and pro-active approach to would-be dictators, aimed to dissuade them from progressing towards absolute dictatorships, and rewarding steps taken towards a more democratic and open regime.
This is based on sound psychology. It is well established that the best way to modify unwanted behaviour is to set a consistent and fair framework of punishments for unwanted behaviour and rewards for appropriate behaviour.
______________________________________________
Motion
Insert new IP 336 and re-number.
IP 336
The Green Party will press for the UN to set up a framework of international rules of governance that will help all dictators, indeed all rulers, to learn that certain courses of actions will certainly lead to unwanted effects on their freedom to act to the detriment of their citizens.
Specified forms of conduct that indicate a tendency towards dictatorship will be matched with a tariff of targeted sanctions which are applied in a measured, stepwise and consistent basis.
IP337
There are a number of identifiable steps on the road to dictatorship. The following examples are advanced as indicators of such a tendency:
1. Electoral fraud
2. Intimidation at the polling booths
3. Ignoring the result of a democratic election
4. Banning critical newspapers and media
5. Banning non-violent opposition parties
6. Imprisoning people for their beliefs
7. Use of torture
8. Violent suppression of peaceful demonstrators
9. Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator
10. Disproportionate spending on arms
11. Oppression of minorities
Each of these steps will be legally defined, and the question of whether the regime in question has committed them will be tested in a timely way in an international court.
IP338 Each step, or constellation of steps, will have a specific sanction attached to it. The targeted sanctions applied will be made appropriate to the specific case, will be recommended by the international court of law, and will be subject to ratification by the UNSC.
Examples of the tariff of sanctions are:
1. At the mildest level, increased intensity and frequency of inspections by UN rapporteurs will take place, and the regime will be offered education in the ways and advantages of democracy.
2. [Next,] tightening up of border [(customs)] controls.
3. Banning [of] opposition parties [may] lead to financial support to non-violent opposition parties whose aims are judged to be helpful to the welfare of the people of the country.
4. Ignoring the result of a democratic election [may] result in a ban in foreign travel for members of the regime.
5. Use of political imprisonment and torture could result in the regime being denied eligibility to serve on appropriate UN councils, for example, the Human Rights Council .
6. Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator could result in sanctions against the import of luxury goods.
7. Violent suppression of minorities and peaceful demonstrations will result in freezing of financial assets of the regime.
8. [Proven use of torture would result in a] ban on foreign travel for members of the regime, with possibility of arrest of such people if they do travel abroad.
9. Disproportionate spending on arms will result in a total ban on arms sales.
The sanctions will be cumulative and progressive, and will be withdrawn promptly, in reverse order, if the regime takes action to retrace its steps.
_______________________________________
The objections raised at Conference, both in the workshop and the plenary were as follows, and also amplified form the debate on this blog, are below. My responses are in italics:
- An objection to use of the word "Dictator". Well, OK. Any other suggestions? Totalitarian/authoritarian? Oppressors? And why the objection to the word anyway? Is this PC? Let's call a dictator a fecking dictator. It is not as if they are sensitive flowers.
- The fact that the effects of the policy could equally apply to the US or Britain. Well, exactly. Great. This is not an objection to the proposal, but a comment presented as an objection.
- The exact circumstances of a regime should affect the situation. Which is why there is a legal process involved, in the proposal itself. If a regime has crossed one line, say has set aside the results of an election,the allegations are tried in court, and if found to be in breach of the rules, a penalty is imposed. The court will look at all the circumstances, that is what courts do.
The thing is here, we are in a double bind. If we insert every detail, it is criticised for being too long. If we condense it, it is criticised for leaving details out.
- The objection that "luxury goods" had not been rigorously defined. See above.
- The motion is unchanged from last time, when it was referred back. This is because I placed it on the International and Policy discussion lists, and there was zero response.
- "The following examples are advanced as indicators of such a tendency" is vague: Well, OK. But if it had read "Here are the indicators of such a tendency", objectors could respond "What about X? You've left X out!"
The fact is that the UN will have the job of final legal definitions. This objection is perfectionistic.
- It is is ludicrous to imagine that dictators "will be offered education in the ways and advantages of democracy". No it isn't. This is an integral part of the UN's existent Responsibility to Protect mechanism.
- The motion adds nothing to the Index of Human Rights policy. Yes it does. I co-wrote the Report on the Global Index of Human Rights with Peter Tatchell, and in the writing, while Burma and Zimbabwe were bubbling around in the news, I thought "The Index does not really address Burma and Zimbabwe as they are. How can we improve it? And we came up with this idea. OK, I came up with it (not wanting to drag Peter into the matter, he has enough on his plate right now).
- The motion is trivial. No it isn't. Ask the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda. The entire point is to prevent average regimes from setting off down the slippery path that leads to dictatorship. OK, to authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. Once a dictatorship is formed, it is bloody hard to get rid of. Prevention is better than cure.
- "Sanctions" will hurt the people. The motion says targeted or "smart" sanctions, which are designed to have effects on the regime without affecting the wellbeing of the population. It is important to distinguish between these measures and the anti-humanitarian sanctions that did such terrible harm to Iraqis after the Gulf war.
Looking at it again, I can see that the language could do with smoothing out, but as there was no feedback in the inter-Conference period, this smoothing did not come about. I suggest that the 10 objections assembled so far all lack staying power.
OK. Open for comments...
Monday, September 13, 2010
Green Party Conference: Dictators, Confusion, Darkness - and Light
Darkness
I am not feeling good.
The motion on Dealing with Dictators at Green Party Conference went badly. I wrote this account immediately afterwards. I may have missed some points, because I was listening to the debate and also preparing my responses to the debate as it went on.
I did not sleep well on the night before the debate, partly through a continuing virus and partly worry about passing the C12 Dealing with Dictators motion. Self fulfilling worry. The motion was due to come up at 2pm, so I went out to get some more Vit C and zinc for the virus. Then a voicemail tells me that C12 was on, early, because scheduled business had been finished. Ran back (not as quick as was in the 1970s when I used to run in the same races as Dave Bedford, although I did not necessarily finish at the same time as him). Burst into hall, sat down, hurried consultation and C12 came up - stuck into the last 5 minutes of the session. I should have asked for it to be at 2pm when it was supposed to be but there was a possibility that we might not be quorate then.
I introduced the motion by asking if anyone knew about the situation of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, which had been blocked from becoming accredited to contest the Rwandan Presidential elections, and whose vice chair had been killed in what was probably a political assassination.
Few had. Which reflects badly on the level of interest by GPEW in international affairs.
I told Conference that Frank Habineza, leader of the DGPR, had expressed support for the motion (see the comment from Africa).
Dealing with Dictators policy is a part of the Global Index of Human Rights Report that Peter Tatchell and I had drawn up and promoted in 2008 for the Green Party.
The international community currently has an ad hoc position on dictators. The big powers take the "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" approach to dictators, which assessment may change, as circumstances demand, to "He is the Devil incarnate, the Hitler of our times, and his country needs to be bombed back into the Stone Age". E.g. Hussein, S.
What this motion seeks to bring about is a framework of law, where untoward behaviour is met by specified disincentives (through a legal process) designed to prevent the slide into dictatorship.
The Chair then called for the workshop report, which usually gives brief details of the numbers present, and the votes taken on preferences of the workshop on the motion as a whole (5 for, 6 against, 6 abstain), for referring back, (11 for, 3 against, 6 abstain) and for taking in parts, ( I do not have the figures, but I think there was a clear majority for this). In this case however, the rapporteur chose to present a catalogue of opinions expressed against the motion, but left out the full replies I made to the objections in the workshop. The objectors had about 10 minutes in the workshop, and I was given one minute, but probably took 2, talking very fast.
He detailed:
Conference then began a confused debate on referring back, conflated with taking it in parts. Referral back was voted down, and in debating taking it in parts, speeches against this were in fact in favour of voting the whole thing down, because...I cannot recall anything substantive. One said it added nothing, another that it was trivial. Just vote it down.
Then, after more speeches against, and none that I can recall as for, the chair declared that we were to vote, and immediately put it to the vote. I was engaged in preparing my response to the debate, and was so gobsmacked by the sudden move to a vote that I failed to shout for my right of reply to debate, which was my error, but it was also a failure of the chair to follow set procedure.
The motion was defeated.
I can accept the defeat of a motion in a fair debate, but this was not a fair and balanced debate.
I exited, a mass of frustration, hurt, fury, disappointment and confusion. This is the third time that this has happened in Conference for me.
I then realised that I had to take a fringe meeting on the Green Wage Subsidy.
Light
I entered the room an emotional wreck. Detecting this, the five assembled there - who had patiently waited for 10 minutes for me to show up - suggested attunement, which is our practice of starting plenaries with a minute of silence. We did, and then I stumbled, dry mouthed, into an explanation of GWS - my finding in Bills of Health of how unemployment destroys health, how I found 1-2 million jobs in the green sector that are available to be done, and the core proposal of enabling Unemployment Benefits to be carried over into jobs in the green sector.
Then a miracle happened. A member described her situation - mother and carer in an area of high unemployment where there had been a lot of suicides. Of how unemployment destroys self esteem, and even the will to live. Just that - her situation. My emotional chaos fell away. How could I feel sorry for myself for what was a transient and partly self caused state of frustration when here was a person whose frustration was existential - experiencing on a daily basis the madness of an irrational benefit system that gives an inadequate dole reluctantly to people on condition that they do no work?
An idea formed. I explained that I was going to contribute to Iain Duncan Smith's consultation on the benefit system, which does have the merit of recognising that there is a problem with the unemployment trap. I was going anyway to suggest in my contribution that it should be piloted.
Would the member like to see if her community would be interested in being the pilot? Yes.
It is going to be a lot of hard work.
The feeling of gloom came back as I packed, wrote down the story, and took the train home. In these situations, you test out actions in your head. Questions swirl.
At the moment the predominant one is to cease from trying to develop Green Party policy. It's a bit pointless, anyway. I am assured you can find the product of our Conference labours, Policies for a Sustainable Society, on the Green Party website. Try it for yourself. See if you can navigate to it. It may be just a web development problem, but it is certainly not readily accessible, even to members.
I feel pretty certain that Birmingham 2010 was the last conference that I will attend, and it probably marks the end of my active engagement with the green party, although, like Jonathon Porritt I will stay a member. Unless, of course, they kick me out.
Self-doubt. Is it my fault? If I want to emphasise a point, I tend to sound angry. Are my ideas just stupid? Should the Green Party really have no UN policy at all? Or should we just leave the Policy Committee to develop policy? Is it all a pointless waste of time?
The mood continued on the train as I typed the deleted bit above out.
Then the guy opposite said "Excuse me, are you from the Green Party? Could I ask your view on a marketing problem?"
Turns out he was with a large, already highly ethical corporation. We launched into a long conversation about his problem for a while, covering all sorts of aspects of economics and finance, the threat of a DDRecession, and even wandering into monetary policy. I came up with a suggestion for his problem, one which could also benefit the homeless lads that John Marjoram and I met last night. He found my suggestion useful. So the second time, engagement with another's problem stopped the problem arising from engagement with Green Party policy. This happened also once before, after I had persuaded Conference to engage with the campaign against the Blair Governments insane stamp-out policy for foot & mouth disease. Then, despite winning over the intense, and equally irrational, resistance of the conservatives in the party, I was exhausted and crushed until I went to a meeting with farmers. Their real problems restored my spirits then. Coincidence is trying to tell me something.
I always say that the Green Party is magnificent when it engages with the world, but pathetic when it engages with itself.
There is just one last thing I would like to change in the Green Party: for the chairs to be taught how to conduct a meeting. Chairing has got better since we have so many elected members, who learn what to do in Council meetings. But it is not good enough yet.
Sorry this is a long boring post.
There is a coherent and constructive discussion of the actual motion here.
Pity it didn't happen a few months ago on the lists.
I am not feeling good.
The motion on Dealing with Dictators at Green Party Conference went badly. I wrote this account immediately afterwards. I may have missed some points, because I was listening to the debate and also preparing my responses to the debate as it went on.
I did not sleep well on the night before the debate, partly through a continuing virus and partly worry about passing the C12 Dealing with Dictators motion. Self fulfilling worry. The motion was due to come up at 2pm, so I went out to get some more Vit C and zinc for the virus. Then a voicemail tells me that C12 was on, early, because scheduled business had been finished. Ran back (not as quick as was in the 1970s when I used to run in the same races as Dave Bedford, although I did not necessarily finish at the same time as him). Burst into hall, sat down, hurried consultation and C12 came up - stuck into the last 5 minutes of the session. I should have asked for it to be at 2pm when it was supposed to be but there was a possibility that we might not be quorate then.
I introduced the motion by asking if anyone knew about the situation of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, which had been blocked from becoming accredited to contest the Rwandan Presidential elections, and whose vice chair had been killed in what was probably a political assassination.
Few had. Which reflects badly on the level of interest by GPEW in international affairs.
I told Conference that Frank Habineza, leader of the DGPR, had expressed support for the motion (see the comment from Africa).
Dealing with Dictators policy is a part of the Global Index of Human Rights Report that Peter Tatchell and I had drawn up and promoted in 2008 for the Green Party.
The international community currently has an ad hoc position on dictators. The big powers take the "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" approach to dictators, which assessment may change, as circumstances demand, to "He is the Devil incarnate, the Hitler of our times, and his country needs to be bombed back into the Stone Age". E.g. Hussein, S.
What this motion seeks to bring about is a framework of law, where untoward behaviour is met by specified disincentives (through a legal process) designed to prevent the slide into dictatorship.
The Chair then called for the workshop report, which usually gives brief details of the numbers present, and the votes taken on preferences of the workshop on the motion as a whole (5 for, 6 against, 6 abstain), for referring back, (11 for, 3 against, 6 abstain) and for taking in parts, ( I do not have the figures, but I think there was a clear majority for this). In this case however, the rapporteur chose to present a catalogue of opinions expressed against the motion, but left out the full replies I made to the objections in the workshop. The objectors had about 10 minutes in the workshop, and I was given one minute, but probably took 2, talking very fast.
He detailed:
- An objection to use of the word "Dictator". Pass
- The fact that the effects of the policy could equally apply to the US or Britain. Well, exactly.
- The perception that the exact circumstances of a regime should affect the situation. Which is why there is a legal process involved, in the motion itself.
- The objection that "luxury goods" had not been rigorously defined. A common alternative objection to policy is that it is too detailed.
Conference then began a confused debate on referring back, conflated with taking it in parts. Referral back was voted down, and in debating taking it in parts, speeches against this were in fact in favour of voting the whole thing down, because...I cannot recall anything substantive. One said it added nothing, another that it was trivial. Just vote it down.
Then, after more speeches against, and none that I can recall as for, the chair declared that we were to vote, and immediately put it to the vote. I was engaged in preparing my response to the debate, and was so gobsmacked by the sudden move to a vote that I failed to shout for my right of reply to debate, which was my error, but it was also a failure of the chair to follow set procedure.
The motion was defeated.
I can accept the defeat of a motion in a fair debate, but this was not a fair and balanced debate.
I exited, a mass of frustration, hurt, fury, disappointment and confusion. This is the third time that this has happened in Conference for me.
I then realised that I had to take a fringe meeting on the Green Wage Subsidy.
Light
I entered the room an emotional wreck. Detecting this, the five assembled there - who had patiently waited for 10 minutes for me to show up - suggested attunement, which is our practice of starting plenaries with a minute of silence. We did, and then I stumbled, dry mouthed, into an explanation of GWS - my finding in Bills of Health of how unemployment destroys health, how I found 1-2 million jobs in the green sector that are available to be done, and the core proposal of enabling Unemployment Benefits to be carried over into jobs in the green sector.
Then a miracle happened. A member described her situation - mother and carer in an area of high unemployment where there had been a lot of suicides. Of how unemployment destroys self esteem, and even the will to live. Just that - her situation. My emotional chaos fell away. How could I feel sorry for myself for what was a transient and partly self caused state of frustration when here was a person whose frustration was existential - experiencing on a daily basis the madness of an irrational benefit system that gives an inadequate dole reluctantly to people on condition that they do no work?
An idea formed. I explained that I was going to contribute to Iain Duncan Smith's consultation on the benefit system, which does have the merit of recognising that there is a problem with the unemployment trap. I was going anyway to suggest in my contribution that it should be piloted.
Would the member like to see if her community would be interested in being the pilot? Yes.
It is going to be a lot of hard work.
The feeling of gloom came back as I packed, wrote down the story, and took the train home. In these situations, you test out actions in your head. Questions swirl.
At the moment the predominant one is to cease from trying to develop Green Party policy. It's a bit pointless, anyway. I am assured you can find the product of our Conference labours, Policies for a Sustainable Society, on the Green Party website. Try it for yourself. See if you can navigate to it. It may be just a web development problem, but it is certainly not readily accessible, even to members.
I feel pretty certain that Birmingham 2010 was the last conference that I will attend, and it probably marks the end of my active engagement with the green party, although, like Jonathon Porritt I will stay a member. Unless, of course, they kick me out.
Self-doubt. Is it my fault? If I want to emphasise a point, I tend to sound angry. Are my ideas just stupid? Should the Green Party really have no UN policy at all? Or should we just leave the Policy Committee to develop policy? Is it all a pointless waste of time?
The mood continued on the train as I typed the deleted bit above out.
Then the guy opposite said "Excuse me, are you from the Green Party? Could I ask your view on a marketing problem?"
Turns out he was with a large, already highly ethical corporation. We launched into a long conversation about his problem for a while, covering all sorts of aspects of economics and finance, the threat of a DDRecession, and even wandering into monetary policy. I came up with a suggestion for his problem, one which could also benefit the homeless lads that John Marjoram and I met last night. He found my suggestion useful. So the second time, engagement with another's problem stopped the problem arising from engagement with Green Party policy. This happened also once before, after I had persuaded Conference to engage with the campaign against the Blair Governments insane stamp-out policy for foot & mouth disease. Then, despite winning over the intense, and equally irrational, resistance of the conservatives in the party, I was exhausted and crushed until I went to a meeting with farmers. Their real problems restored my spirits then. Coincidence is trying to tell me something.
I always say that the Green Party is magnificent when it engages with the world, but pathetic when it engages with itself.
There is just one last thing I would like to change in the Green Party: for the chairs to be taught how to conduct a meeting. Chairing has got better since we have so many elected members, who learn what to do in Council meetings. But it is not good enough yet.
Sorry this is a long boring post.
There is a coherent and constructive discussion of the actual motion here.
Pity it didn't happen a few months ago on the lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
