Corbyn's policies are moderate, sensible and can win an election for Labour

Today at 3pm the chance to vote in the Labour leadership election closed. Ballot papers go out on Friday and then the result is announced on 12 September. According to YouGov and the bookies Jeremy Corbyn is the favourite to win, and if he does it will bring about a seismic shift to the left in British politics.

To be honest I've found the whole contest 'compulsive viewing'. From the very early stages when it became clear that Corbyn was beginning to gather support and the attacks on him started, I've followed every twist and turn. Except so far there haven't been any twists and turns - support for him started as a trickle, then became a torrent and now appears to be a flood which means the veteran left-winger may win the contest outright. 

The attacks on Corbyn, from within and without the Labour Party, have ranged from the vicious to the hilarious, and as support for Corbyn has grown so has the hysteria amongst the media and the establishment who sense they are in danger of losing control - so damned inconvenient democracy isn't it? We've had Tony Blair and his 'heart transplant' comment and Alastair Campbell with his plea for 'anyone but Corbyn' but the more Corbyn is attacked the stronger he appears to become - it is almost like science fiction.

The reason for Corbyn's strength and success isn't difficult to work out - although it hides the fact he has played a blinder - he remains calm, sticks to his beliefs, refuses to engage in slanging matches with opponents, sets out clear and popular policies, and because of this, in contrast to his lacklustre opponents, he comes across as completely authentic. And the 'opponents', tainted by their embrace of the neoliberalism of New Labour, have had nothing to say for themselves, preferring to attack him and parrot out tired and vacuous soundbites. No wonder they are losing and Corbyn is packing halls all over England and Wales.

Many of the policies Jeremy Corbyn has unveiled so far are remarkably similar to the anti-austerity pro-public services policies you will find in the Green Party manifesto. These include support for a publicly delivered NHS, nationalisation of the railways and quantitative easing (QE) for investment in jobs and housing. On the latter point there are differences but the fact that QE is being proposed at all by Corbyn is very significant. All of these are common sense responses to the economic crisis we are in which are popular with the public and which could win Labour the next election if they united behind them.

"Jeremy Corbyn No More War crop" by Garry Knight 

The real significance of the 'Corbyn effect' is that it scares the pants off the neoliberal establishment - they know that Corbyn could win, that his ideas are popular, and that they are a genuine backlash, and threat to the the cosy 'free' market, tax dodging, asset stripping, stitch-up that has been established in the UK over the past 30 years or so. Of course that anti-austerity backlash had to happen, and indeed has been happening for several years. The Green Party, which occupies the space vacated by Labour, and UKIP, which is largely a working class protest against austerity aimed at the wrong target (immigrants and the EU) together garnered 5 million or so votes at the last election. But how much more threatening if the Labour Party could turned against austerity?

At this point its worth quoting Owen Jones on Alastair Heath - the Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph:

"A Jeremy Corbyn victory would have a “disastrous effect”, he [Heath] warned, because it “would become acceptable again to call for nationalising vast swathes of industry, for massively hiking tax and for demonising business. The centre-ground would move inexorably towards a more statist position”."

Although there are significant differences between the Green Party and Labour, which mean that labour hasn't got the wherewithal to deal with climate change and move to the no growth economy that we all need, like my Green Party colleague Derek Wall, I would welcome a Corbyn victory. This is because, as Derek says, it would benefit the entire left not just Labour. Will Corbyn win? I'm not so sure. The knives will be out. He may well be defeated on second preferences. Yvette Cooper as the 'stop Corbyn' candidate may just edge him out, but whatever the result, the genie is out of the bottle, the Labour Party will have changed for the better, and anti-austerity will be firmly on the agenda in England and Wales.

What is the Green Party leader for?

What is the Green Party Leader for? That might seem like an odd question to ask at a time when the Party is just about to elect a new leader, but it has never been clear what the role of the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) really is, and the leadership election has raised issues about the role and position of leader. In fact the Party has only had a leader for four years. Before that, the closest thing to a leader the Party had was the post of Principal Speaker, and there were two of those, one male, one female. We need to ask the question and find the answer for the new leader.

In 2007 the Party members voted for a leader and deputy leader to replace the old system of Principal Speakers. In the end, after fierce debate, the vote to change to leadership secured 73% in favour. Those who supported the change included Caroline Lucas who said:

"This is a fantastic day for the Green party and will help ensure we have a party that is understandable, recognisable and effective" 

At the time, I was against the change, and I still am. But we have to work with what we've got and make the best of it. The problem is that the party isn't sure what it has got and what the role of the leader should be.

What we haven't got is what the other 'grey' neoliberal parties have; a leader who is essentially an elected dictator, someone who lays down policies and has a veto on anything the party wants to do. The Tory party has never pretended to be democratic, always electing its leader from a ruling class cabal until the 1960s. Not that electing a leader has made much difference to the way it works. In Labour, Tony Blair managed to destroy the last vestiges of democracy in the party in the 1990s turning conferences into stage managed media events. I have no doubt that these are not the leadership models that most GPEW members want the party to follow.

So what does that leave us with? What should our leader be doing? Well, there is no doubt that the leader must be a strong advocate for the Party and seek to promote its policies as widely as possible. I believe the leader should be a campaigning leader, and one who holds a dialogue with other groups, such as the trade unions, on behalf of the party. Whoever wins will have to contend with the media spotlight and all the brings with it, including hacks rummaging through your dustbins.

One of the key issues that has arisen during the campaign is the question of whether the leader should be paid. This was not an issue while Caroline was leader, but now it is. It would have been good if the Party had made this decision at the conference in Liverpool, before the election started, but this will now be decided at the conference in September, after the leader is elected. Is the role a full-time job? And what would we expect a Green Party leader to earn - the median wage? My view is that it probably shouldn't be full-time but that might prevent good candidates from standing in future elections. For a small party with very little money, it is difficult to justify spending on full-time posts.

Those who argued for a leader said that the public, the electorate, and the media wouldn't understand a party that had no leader. But there are obvious dangers to having a leader for a radical party. They - the media and ruling class - want us to have a leader. A leader can be co-opted, they can be 'persuaded', they can be vilified, caricatured, but ultimately - they can be made to conform - and ditch policies voted for by their members. The beauty of the old GPEW system was precisely the fact that the media didn't understand it. Just like with Occupy, the powers that be were frustrated that there wasn't an individual they could single out and blame, or coerce, or prosecute and imprison. That gave the movement strength, and it sent out an important signal, that it is possible to organise without a leader.  We are here to bring about change, not just simply play by their rules, and I hope that whoever is elected will show the same determination that Caroline showed, to set the agenda, and not have the agenda set by our political enemies.

Why I will be voting for Romayne and Will

Very soon Green Party members will be receiving ballot papers for the election for Leader, Deputy Leader and GPEx posts. Understandably, most attention will be focused on the election for Party Leader. The leadership election was precipitated by the decision of our MP Caroline Lucas not to stand again after completing a two year term. As I said in a previous post on this issue:

"..party leader Caroline played a blinder as an advocate for the Party's policies of social justice, economic regeneration, fighting climate change, and support for the public sector. As leader, she is going to be sorely missed, and hard to replace..."

I don't want to get bogged down in the leadership election rules but the rules state that for the leader and the deputy, each post must be filled by a person of the opposite gender. So if a male wins the leadership, the deputy must be female and vice versa. Voting is by STV so that does make it possible to support one candidate of either gender for either position. In this post I want to focus on the leadership election.

There are four candidates; Peter Cranie, Natalie Bennett, Pippa Bartolotti and Romayne Phoenix. All of the candidates have put their case, both on their own websites, Facebook, and through party hustings. As far as the latter is concerned, arrangements for hustings were haphazard to say the least, and little account was made by the organisers of the fact that some of the candidates might not be able to attend. In fact, not all the candidates could attend all of the hustings. Next time we need to do much better in ensuring we have a coordinated and organised programme of hustings, including online hustings.

I have made no bones in this blog about the fact that I am an ecosocialist and that I believe that the Green Party must be a radical party or otherwise it has very little useful purpose. We are not here to tinker with the current system. We are fighting against economic and an ecological crises, both of which are linked, and an increasing democratic deficit. 'Business as usual' is no longer an option and the Party needs to be able to get its radical message for change across in an effective way. This is not the time to simply pick a leader who we think will appeal to disaffected Liberal Democrats as some in the Party have suggested. We need to make an electoral breakthrough to bring about change, and we can only do that by having a leader who, like Caroline, can argue our radical case and make their voice heard.

So it will come as no surprise that I believe that Romayne is best placed to do this. Romayne fits the bill very well as an experienced and active, campaigning Party member, who has been an elected councillor, GPEx member, and a very effective platform speaker through her role as chair of the Coalition of Resistance. Like Caroline, she is also well aware of the kind of message we need to get across to a disillusioned electorate, and has clearly put herself at the front of the fight against austerity nationally, in a way that none of the other candidates has been able to do.

Having said that, I have taken time to study the statements and views of the other candidates, and there can be no doubt that they are making all the right noises in terms of growing the membership, improving party organisation and getting more Greens elected. Nothing wrong with that, all good stuff. Peter Cranie has a very good, relaxed, media presence which will be popular amongst many Party members, and is probably seen as a safe pair of hands, and the favourite to win. My problem is that I'm not hearing enough from any of them about that radical edge that I have been talking about, how to promote the real alternative that the Green Party has to offer, and crucially, the kind of policies that support that alternative.

I also like that fact that Romayne and Will are standing as a team on the same platform, and I believe that if they are both elected that will greatly strengthen the Party. I have met Will and I was very impressed both by his down-to-earth approach and the key role he has played in the electoral success the Party has had in the West Midlands. I'd urge you to vote for both of them and as you can see from the video they have made they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. If you want to know more about their views visit their website here.

After Caroline - what next?

I'm guessing most Green Party members were shocked by the news last night that Caroline Lucas is not seeking re-election as the Party leader. I also suspect that our political opponents will be relieved. As party leader Caroline played a blinder as an advocate for the Party's policies of social justice, economic regeneration, fighting climate change, and support for the public sector. As leader, she is going to be sorely missed, and hard to replace, so perhaps I should have said - "who next?"

Caroline Lucas

After the local elections, and the news of Caroline's departure as leader, Green Party members need to take stock of where we are, before thinking about what they want from a new leader. We are still a minority party and, although we punch well above our weight, we have a long way to go before we can get into government, even as part of a coalition. We keep making gains in local elections but we have failed to make a national breakthrough despite our anti-austerity message and support for jobs and public services. Many people in the party are committed to plugging away, doing the hard work of leaflet delivering and canvassing, and, whilst this is necessary and commendable, on its own it is not enough.

What the Green Party needs is a strategy which will increase both membership and support in the country as well as energising many of our less active members. What's worrying about the GPEW statement about Caroline (link above) is the talk about attracting disillusioned Liberal Democrats, because that is not the best way forward for GPEW. Why? because the Liberal Democrat Party is neither radical nor green, despite what many of its current and ex-members might like to think. It is an entirely conventional, grey, neoliberal party committed to austerity and the 'business as usual approach' so often condemned by Caroline Lucas herself.

Depressingly, there are those in GPEW who think entirely in conventional political terms and would like to see GPEW replace the Liberal Democrats in Westminster. This is delusional politics for two main reasons: Firstly, the last thing the UK needs is another Liberal Democrat Party, even if it was a fairer, greener version, and the voters won't be fooled by any attempt to do this; Secondly, this is a potentially a move to the right, to what some people would see as the centre ground, though centre-right would be more accurate, and risks the GPEW falling into the same trap as the Irish Greens did - I posted previously about this trap here.

The way forward is for the Green Party to strengthen its position as a party of social justice and radical economic change. By the latter I mean an explicit rejection of neoliberalism, austerity, corporate domination, and the democratic deficit in the EU, and a commitment to the alternatives such as the Green New Deal, ending privatisation and de-regulation, saving the NHS, ending tuition fees, government planning, and control of the banks.  What we should be aiming to do is to attract support from the huge pool of young people, many of whom have never voted, and who want real change, and access to jobs. We should also be attracting support from the millions of ex-Labour voters who believe in the public sector and social justice. And we need to do much better in attracting support from the ethnic minorities. These are all potential supporters who are more likely to be attracted by a party offering a radical alternative than many of the disillusioned Liberal Democrats.

As things stand, Ed Millband is likely to be Prime Minister in 2015, if not before. But this will be a victory by default. People will vote Labour to get the Tories out, not because they love Labour, but in the hope that things will be less worse than they are now. There is still plenty of room for a radical party of social justice at the next general election. We are more likely to make gains then, by going down the route I have described, than the dead-end advocated by those who see replacing the Liberal Democrats as the best bet.

One of the things those on the right of GPEW, who oppose a more radical Party direction, need to come to terms with, is that that green, environmental politics and 'free' market capitalism are ultimately incompatible. This is the elephant in the room, and is central to the whole debate about what kind of Party the GPEW should be. The kind of society we Greens want, is more democratic, more fairly regulated, more local, more community based and truly sustainable, and this is anathema to the corporations, because they understand fully that such a green economy would exclude both them and their destructive practices. That is why people like Nigel Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) expend so much energy and cash railing against climate change. And that is why so many commenters in CiF rage about Greens being eco-fascists. They get it even if some Greens don't. As I said in a previous post:

".....you have to ask - why is it that climate change has become a left vs right issue over the past decade or so? Why do right-wingers like Nigel Lawson, of the GWPF, Tory MPs, and Ruth Lea seem to think that all environmentalists are lefties and climate change is a left-wing plot to bring about an eco-socialist world? Why do they object so strongly? The answer is simple - capitalism and corporate profits. The 'free' market right have recognised that climate change is a potential threat to established big businesses and capitalist accumulation, which relies on compound growth."

If Ruth Lea and co. think like that, then it makes Green politics radical and anti-capitalist whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Then read this excellent article by Naomi Klein, "Climate vs Capitalism", which sums up why capitalists are out to kill climate change and green politics. Here is a telling quote:

"The [climate change] deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system."

There is no route to a green future in going down the same political cul-de-sac as the Liberal Democrats, and no point in wasting time with the illusion that capitalists will 'see the light' and suddenly become socially and environmentally responsible. In addition, as I've made clear in previous posts, neoliberal capitalism will never revive our economy, and those that believe that existing economic systems can be made to work in the face of climate change are doomed to disappointment and failure.

Finally, there was an interesting post in the Guardian today by party colleague Jim Jepps entitled "Caroline Lucas stepping down is good for the Greens". I do hope he is right. For my money there is only one Party member who has the track record and credibility to replace Caroline Lucas as leader. I just hope he is willing and able to stand.

Footnote:

I just wanted to update this post to clarify some of the points I made in the light of comments I have received here and elsewhere. As for Lib Dems:

1. Lib Dems may be active and disillusioned but do they really share our values? - I don't think so. I'm sure that many ex-Labour supporters and members have values which are closer to our own. I can't pretend this is scientific but it is based on my 40 years of involvement in politics. I am, of course, not opposed to ex-Lib Dem supporters or members who share our values joining GPEW -  In fact I would welcome them.

2. Following on from 1; Five million voters deserted Labour from 2005 onwards, there are over 1 million unemployed people under 25, and many others who are politically disengaged. We also need to reach out to ethnic minority voters. This is a much larger pool of people than disillusioned Lib Dems and these are people we should be targeting. Targeting Lib Dems is a very limited approach for a party that wants to make a breakthrough and shows a lack of ambition as far as I'm concerned.

On Capitalism:

If you have read other posts on this blog you will know that I have been careful to distinguish between "capitalism" and the "private sector". By capitalists I mean people who own the means of production such as Branson, Murdoch etc, people who control and own the the corporations. However, I have no problem with the "private sector". Your local newsagent, pub landlord, tenant farmer, co-operative, and numerous other small businesses etc etc are not capitalists. I welcome the contribution these people make to our economy, in fact, I think it is essential. The problem of "capitalism" centres around the power and sheer social, economic, and environmental destructive capacity of corporations and financial capitalism, including the banking sector. If we want social justice and to fight climate change and deal with resource depletion we will have to move away from the current "capitalist" model which is unsustainable in any case, as I have argued above, and in other posts.

A key part of the purpose of this blog as far as I am concerned is to share ideas and stimulate debate so I welcome both comments that are supportive, and those that are critical, the latter as long as they are constructive and deal with the arguments. I don't publish comments from people who are simply out to slag me off or be abusive.