watermelon
Conference
Newsletter of Green Left Autumn 2017
ACCURSED WEALTH
John Clare Statue in the
garden of his cottage Helpston. (photo by Malcolm Bailey)
John Clare (1793-1864), a poverty-stricken agricultural labourer, is now
belatedly recognised as an outstanding nature poet. Fiercely opposed to the
social violence of enclosure of the commons, self-taught naturalist, surely
Clare is worthy of a place among the proto - ecosocialist writers? Clare’s poem
‘Helpston’ included the lines below when first published in 1820. These were
removed by his publisher from later editions, against Clare’s wishes, after
complaints by aristocratic patrons. (writes
Malcolm Bailey)
"Accursed
wealth oer bounding human laws
Of every evil
thou remains the cause
Victims of
want those wretches such as me
Too truly lay
their wretchedness to thee
Thou art the
bar that keeps from being fed
& thine
our loss of labour & of bread
Thou art the
cause that levels every tree
& woods
bow down to clear a way for thee "
(with thanks to Roger Rowe and Eric Robinson)
 |
Green Left is an anti-capitalist, ecosocialist group
within the Green Party of England & Wales. Membership is open to all GPEW members, (see back page for
details). All
views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Green
Left.
|
A Half Empty Green
Party
 |
It should have been no surprise that the Green
Party lost more than half of its 2015 vote at the recent general election. A
re-invigorated Labour Party, led by a veteran socialist and enthused by a huge
influx of new and returning radicals, including many from the Green Party,
fought an effective grassroots campaign, against a smug and inept Tory Party,
in a polarised election.
The bad news was that the Green Party failed to
build on progress made. It seems a long way from increasing its parliamentary
representation if it has to fight all the other parties under first past the
post. The good news was that for the first time a Labour Party which challenged
neo liberalism and austerity came close to victory, and is confident of
becoming at least the largest party in a further general election which may be
coming soon.
Greens played an
important part in Labour's relative success. Some local green parties,
including my own in High Peak, stood candidates down and encouraged our
supporters to lend their votes to Labour. Everywhere many who voted Green in
2015 because of its left wing policies cast their votes for Jeremy and his team
this time, contributing to a Labour vote of 40%, which rocked the establishment
and shocked many of the so-called experts.
What should greens do? Cry foul play because
Labour wouldn't play ball over electoral alliances and stole some of our
popular policies? Wait ( even hope ) for Corbyn and Co to run out of momentum
and for their new radical supporters to become disillusioned, in the hopes that some of them will drift
back to us? I fear many will simply disengage.
Having nothing to do with the Labour Party may
be considered the route to success in the 'long term' , but, seriously, how
long have we got ? Central to our politics is a belief that we need a
government which will take action on climate change and much else in the
very near future.
It would be far better to positively engage with
the Labour Party and its huge membership. We should campaign with them on
issues where we share common aims - investing in social housing and public
services, reducing the obscene division of wealth in the UK and across the
planet, defending environmental protections and workers’ rights in the context
of Brexit etc . Whilst doing so we can seek to convince Labour members and
supporters that the ecological agenda needs to have as much prominence as the
economic and social . In my experience many of them already understand this and
would welcome the opportunity to work with Greens.
We need to
build a popular movement not just for socialism but for ecosocialism. We also
need to continue to promote a new politics, based on progressive alliances and
fixing our broken system, including introducing PR.
As Caroline Lucas said after the 2015 election.
" unless we work out a way of working
together then the grounds for radical hope will be much diminished"
"-Evidence Base, Legitimacy and Influence: one standard for claimants, another for legislators?" by Alan Wheatley
This article is written from the
perspective of one who has been tested multiple times to ensure entitlement for
the out-of-waged work sickness and disability benefit ESA (Employment &
Support Allowance), and campaigned with and blogged for the Kilburn Unemployed
Workers Group's 'Kwug Blog'.(1) It seems to me that there are huge differences
between the sort of evidence-base required to prove one's eligibility for a
Department for Work & Pensions State benefit compared to what is required
to influence DWP policy affecting economically vulnerable claimants.
Furthermore, there is an enormous gulf
between the social standing and influence of benefit claimants on the one hand,
and those of 'key decision makers' and lobbyists on the other. That disparity
allows Government, and the business interests they serve, more rights than
disadvantaged people to violate a UN Convention on the human rights of disabled
people.(2)
As an example, there is this output
from 'think tank' Reform UK that is driving forward the closure of local jobcentres:
“Jobcentre Plus – the UK’s public
employment service – won plaudits for its performance over the financial
crisis....” (3). From whom were those 'plaudits' obtained, one might ask?
Digging a little deeper on the Reform UK site, we find that the praise has come
from David Cameron as Prime Minister and from the National Audit Office.(4) We
also find there, that the corporation that has written that report is
Accenture(5) — whom the DWP contracted to implement its Universal Credit [sic]
for benefits delivery.(6)
What counter-evidence exists regarding
the 'performance' of Jobcentre Plus over the financial crisis? Loads,
especially on websites such as Kate Belgrave | Talking with people dealing
with public sector cuts(7) and Taxpayers Against Poverty(8) as well
as the burgeoning use of food banks in response to benefit delays and
sanctions. On the specific matter of benefit sanctions, in an incisive piece
regarding the sanctions data that comprise a large element of the 'thumbs up'
responses to Jobcentre Plus, Dr David Webster of University of Glasgow writes :
“Benefits claimants are subjected to an
'amateurish, secret penal system which is more severe than the mainstream
judicial system'(9). Come the closure of local jobcentres, claimants would
have to travel further to meet Claimant Commitment conditionality, making it
easier for them to be sanctioned and less easy for them to be supported by
campaigners such as Kate Belgrave and the KUWG. It would also worsen the
injustices of those turned down for disability benefits in being unable to
access support and be noticed. And so, of course, it will be all the easier for
the DWP etc to bury the real evidence-base of what is going on.(10)
References
4.
http://www.reform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-future-of-public-services-digital-jobcentres.pdf
5.
ibid
VENEZUELA,
LATIN AMERICA & THE GLOBAL CRISIS
David
Raby
For
some time now Venezuela has had an appalling media image: repression (with over
100 deaths in the last four months), opposition leaders in gaol, dismissal of
the Attorney-General, in short, a dictatorship. A major oil producer, it is
also seen as anything but Green.
But
the very fact of Venezuela’s enormous oil wealth (its reserves are now
estimated to be the world’s largest) and its deposits of coal, gold, alumina
and other minerals make it a coveted prize for global capital and the US. Add
to this its central role since 1999 in the emergence of a regional
anti-imperialist and revolutionary alliance which poses a direct threat to
corporate globalisation and US hegemony, and you can see why it is a prime
target for media distortion, political hostility and destabilisation.
In
a region where the Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutions had inspired hope of
liberation and social justice through armed insurrection, such visions had been
crushed by military regimes which used the guerrilla threat as a pretext for
brutal repression. But with Hugo Chávez and the “Bolivarian Revolution” the
Venezuelans turned this logic on its head: yes, they said, we believe in
peaceful change and democracy, but revolutionary democracy, participatory
democracy in which ordinary people – workers, peasants, women, blacks and
native peoples – organise to vote in elections, referenda, community councils
and communes to show that “Another World Is Possible”.
The
extraordinary success of this process, leading to dramatic improvements in
health, education, welfare, housing, and rights for women, workers and
minorities, guaranteed electoral victories for the revolution in all except two
of twenty elections and referenda over the past 18 years. It also led to
remarkable economic success for many years. But not surprisingly it met with
ferocious hostility from Washington and the privileged Venezuelan oligarchy.
Unable
to win elections, the oligarchy seized power by force in the April 2002 coup,
but was driven out in less than 48 hours by mass resistance and because the
military, inspired and reorganised by Chávez, were being radically transformed
into a people’s army identified with the revolution.
Venezuela’s
transformation, supported from the beginning by Cuba, now gave rise to a
broader Latin American liberation project conceived by Chávez: the ALBA or
Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America. Not a “Free Trade Deal”, in
fact its polar opposite, the ALBA is an economic, social, political and
cultural integration project based on fair trade, social justice and
environmental sustainability. It includes Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua,
Ecuador and four of the small Anglophone Caribbean states. Honduras and
Paraguay also joined but then left following right-wing coups inspired by
Washington, but other small Caribbean countries have since joined.
Two
regional giants, Brazil and Argentina, also allied with Venezuela without
becoming members of ALBA, and the Alliance also promoted cooperation between
non-state actors such as social movements in different countries. The influence
of indigenous movements and of the Bolivian government have led to increased
emphasis on Pachamama – Mother Earth
– and to ALBA playing a leading role in global climate negotiations.
Bolivarian
Venezuela has also promoted less overtly political instruments of regional
integration, notably UNASUR (the Union of South American States) and CELAC (the
Confederation of Latin American and Caribbean States), in contrast to the older
OAS (Organisation of American States) which has been described as “the US
Department of Colonies”. Other institutions promoted by Venezuela include
PETROCARIBE, the Bank of the South, the University of the South and the
multinational Latin TV channel Telesur. In sum these amount to an entire
regional architecture asserting sovereignty and independence from the Colossus
of the North.
It
is in these circumstances that a global right-wing offensive, led by Washington
but backed also by the UK and EU, has been trying to roll back all of the gains
made by ALBA and the broader Latin American liberation project. The right-wing
electoral victory of Macri in Argentina and the coup against Dilma Rousseff in
Brazil paved the way for an all-out offensive against Venezuela, rightly seen
as the key to the entire regional liberation project.
Of
course there have been mistakes and deficiencies in the Venezuelan process and
the government of President Nicolás Maduro. But Maduro has a democratic mandate
and has repeatedly tried to negotiate with the opposition which is intransigent
and violent. The recent decision to convene a Constituent Assembly appears to
have been a master-stroke: it mobilised the popular base of the revolution as
never before since the death of Chávez, and it is no accident that opposition
violence has ceased since the Assembly elections.
The
media will not tell you that 70% of the 100+ violent deaths in the previous
four months were caused by the opposition, a significant section of which is
armed and very violent: they have shot police and troops, thrown Molotov
cocktails, set fire to government
buildings and buses, and lynched unarmed government supporters,
particularly those who are black or indigenous. Sectors of the opposition are
openly fascist, and prominent opposition leaders who are in gaol are there for
having openly incited such violence. Now with Trump’s new sanctions designed to
strangle Venezuela, there is only one side we can possibly support in this
conflict; in fact, victory for Venezuela could well be a crucial step in
restraining the genocidal and ecocidal offensive of global reaction.
Also appears at
https://londongreenleft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/venezuela-latin-america-global-crisis.html
Another view of the Venezuelan
situation was given by Craig Murray https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/08/of-venezuela-and-hypocrisy
LESSONS
FROM THE SCHOOL CUTS CAMPAIGN
by Martin
Francis (Brent Green Party and school governor)
The
General Election result was a shock, but there had been straws in the wind. Such
as the campaign over school cuts led by parents, unions and community groups
that became a mass movement during the election period.
Survation,
the most accurate polling company of GE2017 found that 7.8 million people
changed their votes during the campaign for four main reasons: party leader,
school funding, social care and Brexit. School funding was the second most
common reason for vote change and the equivalent of 800,000 votes.
The
campaign did not come out of the blue. It built on joint work between teachers
and parents that had taken place over issues such as over-testing and the
narrowing of the curriculum, building common ground where Tory and right-wing
media often tried to divide and rule.
NUT groups in particular had been out running education stalls at the
weekend making contact with parents and the local community
The
budget cuts were the result of the government’s revision of the national
funding formula for distributing funds to local authorities and the additional
pressures of a rise in national insurance and pensions contributions, the
apprenticeship levy and rising pupil numbers. This meant that the amount per
pupil was cut in real terms. Government protested that funding had never
been higher, but the Fair Funding For All Schools campaign definitively refuted
this.
There
were a number of aspects of the campaign that were particularly effective. We
could learn from this for other campaigns such as fracking, library closures
and clean air.
Vitally
a direct link was made between the national figures on education cuts right
down to school level and the number of jobs that were threatened. Using the schoolcuts.org.uk
website parents, students, governors and teachers could type in the name of
their school and find out exactly how much would be cut and its equivalent in
jobs. The cuts could be seen as real flesh and blood people who would be lost
to the school and the children. This galvanised groups of parents to organise
at school and local level and created dialogue with school staff and education
unions.
The
website added tools to directly email MPs and enable self-organisation of
events to publicise the cuts. These were imaginative including picnics,
marches, and choirs singing against the cuts all of which were posted on social
media including YouTube.
The
NUT’s school cuts video on Facebook was watched by more than 4.5 million people
and individual teachers and parents posted links to events on Twitter, Facebook
and other social media.
As
the campaign progressed the press began to pick up the issue and Tory MPs faced
with a deluge of email began to lobby their government colleagues about the
cuts. Then Theresa May put her foot in it with the announcement that she wanted
to end infant free meals, and replace them with free breakfasts. This mobilized
some less visible people, such as school governors who had made financial
investments in expanding school kitchens and taking on additional staff when
free meals were introduced. Now they were they facing making staff redundant
through budget cuts directly due to government policy.
Next
headteachers began to speak out in letters to parents or to the local press and
a number resigned. After the election the Daily Mail (28th June)
headlined a story ‘SCHOOLS’ BID TO SWAY ELECTION’.-Headteachers sent out
letters attacking Tory policies during campaign.’ As a former head teacher I can only say ‘Good
for them!’
Now
the National Education Union exists, made up of the amalgamation of the NUT and
ATL. Cooperation between unions was a vital part of this campaign with the
schools cuts website supported by the NUT, ATL, NAHT, GMB*, Unison and Unite.
By
the time you read this, the Government will have announced its school funding
proposals. They failed to make a clear announcement in the Queen’s
(over-testing) Speech, with only a fudged proposal on shifting funds from the
free schools programme. What is needed
is a restoration of funding to 2015 levels with additional funding in April
2018 to ensure an increase in real terms.Whatever the eventual outcome this
campaign has created structures than can be built to transform education. I
hope Green Party members if not involved already will get behind it.
* National Union of Teachers, Association of Teachers
and Lecturers, National Association of Headteachers, GMB is a general union
Screen
grab from schoolcuts.org.uk
The Elephant is
Back by David Taylor
It was said of the 2015 Autumn
conference that there was an elephant, if not in the room, at least staring in
from the Bournemouth promenade. But it was business as usual on the conference
floor with barely a mention of the event which had changed the political
weather – the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. This Autumn`s
conference has more motions on organisation and strategy than those on policy –
so after all the confounding of pundits and pollsters, the winning of votes,
parliamentary seats and leadership elections the presence of a large pachyderm
has finally been acknowledged.
The Green Party has long been strong on
innovative policy ideas. The notion of a Citizens’ Income has entered mainstream
thinking as a way of enabling billions of workers to consume goods produced by
the technology which has displaced them. Even a motion on the principle of
ecocide, passed at a recent conference, found an echo when some world leaders
condemned Trump`s climate change walkout as “a crime against humanity”.
We have spent less time considering how
we get from where we are now to where we want to be. The Target to Win strategy
did have its successes at local level. Chris Williams, one of 24 Green councillors
elected in the West Midlands, told Green World “Our message does resonate in
working class areas once we break out of the “comfort zone”, there is nothing
special in the water here”. They campaigned with local organisations to defend
services and alongside ordinary people on day to day issues. The party lost an
opportunity when the strategy was not widely taken up. The success of the
party`s anti-austerity stance at the 2015 General election was undermined by
First Past the Post.
A Tale of Two Motions
After the
dismal showing at the 2017 General Election everyone
is asking “What now for the Green Party ? A question which will not be solved
by improved training courses or organisational tinkering. However two motions
do have proposals for the way forward..
Motion D03 Changing the Green Party Message and
Target-to-Win
This says that we need to get
back to our core value. There are in fact 10 core values. They have
quoted No.3 and managed to ignore No.1 which defines the Green Party as a party
of social and environmental justice, the two elements being inseparable.
It is proposed to emphasise the “ecological dimension” to all issues and
produce “Talking Points” to help members to bring ecological themes into topics
“not normally associated with them” and to stress “Abrupt Climate Change” which
is now an emergency. A “Target Report” is also proposed to concentrate
resources on seats where the Green vote held up in 2017. With the exception of
Brighton these are all seats held by the Tories, mostly with a large majority.
Motion D10 Campaigning Priorities
This motion, urges GPEW to
prioritise campaigning on those issues, arising from climate change and other
environmental threats, which amount to a health and safety emergency for the
majority of people. Specifically a programme of
measures to ensure Public Health and Safety which would increase funding
for health and social care, fire safety in all homes and public buildings, low
carbon public transport and renewable energy expansion and to help to build
broad based local campaigns in support of these common interests. The motion
recognises that the best hope for such action is the election of a Labour led
government under pressure from a broad popular movement. This reference to Labour
has not been popular in certain parts of the party although it merely states
the obvious.
After forcing May to abandon her
election manifesto plans Labour is now setting the political agenda. Derek Wall
has said that the Green Party paved the way for Corbyn`s victory by challenging
the right wing consensus and now “a Green Party advancing new and radical ideas
… challenging not so much Corbyn but the continuing rightward elements in
Labour could play a very positive role”.
The Green Party needs to keep its
identity. It has been the vehicle for many ideas for change to benefit the 99%.
No party can be the sole owner of an idea and to the extent that another party
can actually implement green policies they deserve our backing. But for a
Corbyn led government to deliver a radical social transformation it will need
the support of a broad popular movement in which the Green Party can a play
leading role.
The proposers of Motion D08 say there
is a “Climate Emergency”. Right. There has been one for decades. Ten years ago
we marched from Heathrow to Sibson village, due to be bulldozed for the new runway, holding
placards saying “Climate Emergency – Ban Domestic Flights !” I liked the slogan
but would you use in an election campaign ? - not likely ! The
media would inevitably ignore the “domestic” and depict us as killjoys
who wanted to stop people going on holiday.
A political party is more than a
protest movement and the “make every theme green ” mantra of Motion D08 sounds
like the latter. Stressing the danger of “Abrupt Climate Change” may scare
people witless but what are they supposed to do ? Join the Greens ? Or stroll
about with a sandwich board bearing that message so dear to cartoonists - “The
End is Nigh” ? By ignoring the changed
political landscape, Motion D08 is in danger of reducing GPEW to the proverbial
one-trick pony; or worse, being seen as a sect shouting at the moon.
Why the Progressive
Alliance was never going to work for the Green Party by Alan Borgars
Just before the 2017 general election campaign the Conservatives
were predicted to win a landslide of over 100 under Theresa May, due to UKIP
leaking support now that their wish of Britain leaving the European Union was
going to be granted under a Conservative government. This prompted the Green
Party to advocate a 'Progressive Alliance' between itself, Labour and the
Liberal Democrats to throw the Conservatives out, on the grounds that the
combined PA vote would be enough to oust them in key seats.
The reality is that it failed for the Green Party, costing more
than half its votes and all but 8 deposits. But PA was never going to work and made
little or no difference to the outcome. Labour made as many as 29 gains from
the Conservatives in 2017, but this was largely due to a backlash against
Brexit in seats where Remain carried the vote in last year's EU referendum,
long-term urban trends towards Labour, a poor Conservative campaign, and the
Conservatives' frequent refusal to enter even local hustings. In the majority
of these gains there was a Green candidate, and they often happened in seats
where UKIP was tacitly supporting the Conservative MP in question. Of the
six seats the Conservatives gained from Labour that year, four
(Copeland, Mansfield, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland, and Walsall
North) had no Green Party candidate, and in the two with a Green candidate,
North East Derbyshire and Stoke-on-Trent South, the Conservative majorities
were larger than the number of Green votes attained in those seats in
2015, never mind 2017. A notable example is Peterborough, which Labour
gained from Eurosceptic Conservative Stewart Jackson despite UKIP's support ,
and Mr Jackson increasing his vote share to 46.1%. Worse still, it gave the
impression that the Green Party was tacitly supporting Labour and therefore not
relevant to the big picture, which caused considerable damage to the Greens in
Labour seats it had been targeting, and in many West Country seats where Labour
was not in a position to win but where the Greens can win in the long
run (e.g. Totnes, Somerton & Frome) firstreplacing the Liberal
Democrats as challengers to the dominant Conservatives.
Even before the Green Party leadership election of 2016, Labour publicly
stated they would not support any such PAe, and the Liberal Democrats were
largely uninterested as well. In fact, Labour infamously expelled three
long-serving members who advocated Labour, like the Green Party, stand
down for Dr Louise Irvine in South West Surrey in order to oust hated Health
Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Labour made no reciprocation of any Green Party
candidate withdrawals.The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Brighton Pavilion
(Caroline Lucas' seat) and Skipton & Ripon, but this made no difference
either as neither could realistically have changed hands.
It is clear that the Progressive Alliance project, much vaunted by
co-leaders Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, and also by deputy leader
Amelia Womack, was a failure for the Green Party, and the Green Party must
move on from it in order to achieve better electoral success and win more seats
in future elections. It must also build a stronger councillor base, as
groundwork is crucial for winning marginal seats and target seats and making
sure the voters know what the green alternative can bring.
'What's Wrong With Ecologism'? by Malcolm Bailey
Swaddywell Pit Nature Reserve,
Cambridgeshire. (photo by Malcolm Bailey)
The Green
Party’s disappointing General Election June 2017 has been blamed on the failure
of the ‘Progressive Alliance’ strategy, and the success of Jeremy Corbyn’s
Labour Party moving leftwards and adopting many Green Party policies from our
2015 manifesto. Consequently some Green Party voices are now calling for a
rightwards lurch by the Green Party, with the adoption of an ill-defined woolly
‘ecologism’ as our core message. The tired old mantra of ‘neither right, nor
left, but forward’ has again raised its fatuous head, begging the question what
constitutes forward?
This would
be a mistake. Our social justice policies – including education, NHS, railways
and utilities into public ownership, student tuition fees and maintenance
grants, mental health provision, links with trades unions on a host of
workplace issues, must remain our lead messages, together with our key
environmental policies including anti-fracking, opposition to nuclear power and
nuclear weapons, renewable energy and many others. Our environmental and social
justice policies are interdependent. Together they identify the Green Party.
Opposing
this vague ‘ecologism’ idea does not of course mean diluting our basic ecology
principles. It is essential to draw a clear distinction between ecology and
‘ecologism’.
Ecology is
a biological science. It’s the study of ecosystems and the interconnectedness
of all living things and their environment. All Green Party policies are
evidence–based and consistent with the science. Our policies against global warming
due to human activities are rooted in overwhelming scientific evidence. Green
Party members are deeply concerned about pollution, contamination of habitats,
degradation of oceans and rain forests, loss of biodiversity and endangered
species. Many Greens, including myself, support groups such as Wildlife Trusts
and the RSPB, engage in conservation activities and perhaps wildlife gardening,
gaining a practical insight into local ecology issues.
Ecology is
not ecologism. Ecologism may be broadly defined as an ideology founded on the
application of ecological concepts and priorities to political and moral
issues. It has numerous varieties,
including shallow, social and deep ecology. There are significant and valuable
aspects of the various categories of ecologism, especially social ecology, but
in general they fail to address adequately the fundamental origins of the
environmental crisis, do not offer a radical solution, and do not represent a
viable future direction for the Green Party.
This is not about factional politics. It concerns open democratic policy
/ strategy debate and consensus.
The current
economic system, capitalism, and global corporatism are the central problems
underlying the environmental crisis. Capitalism must be opposed and replaced by
a new economic system. Ecologism does not confront and seek to end capitalism.
Capitalism is predicated on continual growth which inevitably conflicts with
the resources of a finite planet Earth. Ian Angus [1] in his discussion of the
Anthropocene recognises capitalism’s need for ever-increasing growth as an
addiction. Capitalism is intrinsically incapable of reforming itself.
Greenwashing capitalism is not a solution. Joel Kovel [2] identifies capitalism
as anti-ecological, indicting endless growth, overconsumption and exploitation
of natural resources as the enemy of nature. Kovel explains the development of
a social view of ecology, taking into account ethical positions with ecological
content. He considers what acting ethically and ecologically implies,
integrating all dimensions of ecology, leading to an ecosocialist viewpoint,
which is environmentally, economically and socially just. De Angelis [3]
explores the role of the commons and the transformation to post-capitalism.
My analysis
does not support the view that the Green Party response to the General Election
last June should be a lurch to the right, moving from socialism to ‘ecologism’
and ditching so-called ‘left-wing populist’ policies. Such a flip-flop approach
to politics would seriously damage the credibility of the Green Party. Whilst
welcoming the present ascendancy of socialist policies in the Labour Party
under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, there is no guarantee this is a permanent
state, or how a future Labour government may perform. We do not know if or when
Peak Corbyn will be reached. Labour is far from ecosocialist. Most Labour Party
MP’s, many Labour councils, and much of the Labour Party organisation remain
entrenched as ‘New Labour’.
What’s
wrong with ecologism? It fails to confront capitalism. It would be a backward
step for the Green Party.
[1] ‘Facing the Anthropocene’, Ian Angus,
Monthly Review Press, (2016)
[2] ‘The Enemy of Nature’, Joel Kovel, Zed
Books, (2007)
[3] ‘Omnia Sunt Communia’, Massimo De Angelis,
Zed Books, (2017)
IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE
CAMPAIGNING FOR GREEN PARTY POLICIES WHILE ALSO WORKING FOR THE ELECTION OF A
CORBYN LED GOVERNMENT.
Jay Ginn wrote:
I believe it is possible to
continue campaigning for Green Party policies while also working for the
election of a Corbyn led government.
In the former role, we are
raising the profile of climate change issues and opening up questions about
endless consumption and growth; and what constitutes social and economic
wellbeing.
In the latter role, we are
pursuing the only realistic strategy – for a government that could gradually,
under pressure from its membership and ourselves, move towards green policies.
I find Momentum members, in
my area, are overwhelmingly conscious of climate change issues, alongside
opposition to wars and arms trading and a vision of a more equal sharing of
resources within and among nations.
I regret the dominant focus
in some local Green parties on electing a Green MP, however effective Caroline
Lucas continues to be in Parliament. Campaigning for local councillors is
rather different; but the aim should be to use elections as an opportunity to
put forward green policies
Jay Ginn
“Ecosocialism joins together
social justice – putting people
before profit – with the realisation that our
lives and our
society depend on our environment.”
We
are living in turbulent times politically, with underlying economic turmoil
exacerbated by the chaotic consequences of accelerating climate change. The
capitalist system, dependant on never ending exploitation of resources to
maintain constant growth, is clearly incapable of alleviating human-caused
climate damage; and the same goes for its political mouthpieces.
Many people have recognised this and are
attempting to deal with it in various ways – through pressure groups,
campaigns, political parties and individual actions. A unifying factor is the
perception that any useful attempt at a solution has to involve a
reorganisation away from capitalist economics and policies.
People from a variety of Green and/or Left
political organisations and traditions have formed an Ecosocialist Network to
include people from various political parties or none. Green Left, a left
tendency within the Green Party of England and Wales decided to support this
step.
We share the view that there is a
political opening for Ecosocialists to get organised, and indeed an urgent need
to make this happen. We welcome all those who can contribute to building the
network, including those involved in local groups and our Green friends who
have joined Labour to support Corbyn.
To
join our ESNet mailing list, please contact: yrrumuk@googlemail.com
"THE CARTHORSE, THE DINOSAURS AND THE RADIOACTIVE ELEPHANT"
By Peter Murry
The Trade Union Congress
(TUC,) which represents a majority of British Trade Unions took a historic step
on 12th September 2017 when it unanimously passed Climate
change Motion 10 and amendments. This begins: “Congress notes the irrefutable
evidence that dangerous climate change is driving unprecedented changes to our
environment…”
No doubt many Greens
will be saying: ‘About time too! How many hurricanes did it take to make you
notice this?’. Understandable, but unfair, since, for a long time,
awareness of climate change and environmental crisis has been building amongst
Trade Unions.
This is not surprising
if you remember that many Unions’ members are already on the frontline in
dealing with the consequences of climate change. Firemen and women, ambulance
crews and many other workers in the emergency services cope with floods and
their victims. Airport and transport workers, (and sometimes their families
too), are consistently exposed to harmful pollutants such as diesel emissions.
University, college and school teachers have continually tried to pass on the
uncomfortable truths about our environmental crisis, which the powerful often
seek to deny or ignore.
In 2016 the Transport
Salaried Staff Association (TSSA) was the main proposer of a TUC Climate Change
Motion which perhaps went further than the 2017 motion in explicitly calling
for an end to airport expansion. This was construed by some as a threat to jobs
and the motion fell 75% against/25% for.
Perhaps the 2017 success
was a case of carrot being better than stick in moving the TUC carthorse.
Continuing with the animal comparisons, even Unite and GMB, often seen as
anti-Green dinosaurs, supported it, whilst not mentioning the radioactive
elephant in the room (nuclear power) may have secured the support of the
technical/managerial union, Prospect.
It could also be a fudge
that enables the TUC to say, “Yes we’re dealing with climate change, look at
the 2017 motion.”
So will the Greens now
have to adapt the time honoured trot demo slogan and chant “TUC,
GET OFF YOUR KNEES! CALL A CLIMATE CHANGE STRIKE!”?
The
Great Auk is gone,
So we’ll
never know now
If it
cried “Awk”, like its own name;
And
Steller’s Sea Cow
Has gone
too,
So we’ll
never again hear
Its
maritime moo.
The
Passenger Pigeons’
Great
commute is done.
And the
thylacine,
Who can
say?
It could
still be around today.
That’s
what we’d rather believe
Than
face the fact
That we
are butchers, who loose little sleep,
Then
wake to kill and kill and kill
Only
then do we weep.
|
|
The Green Party Trade Union Group
The Green Party
Trade Union Group is part of the Green Party of England & Wales, FREE
Membership of GPTU is open to any current members of GPEW. Contact secretary@gptu.greenparty.org.uk. or join at the
GPTU conference stall.
GREEN LEFT ONLINE
Green left facebook
Green left website
Green left blog
|
 JOIN GREEN LEFT
Green
Left subscriptions are £5 per year, with a reduced discretionary fee of £2
for unwaged/low waged. Sendi
a cheque or pay by standing order
Please send cheques to: Green
Left Treasurer,
Please send the following details with your
cheque:
NAME
ADDRESS
GREEN
PARTY MEMBERSHIP (name of Party)EMAIL
PHONE
OR
You can set up a standing
order or make a direct payment to the account using the following
details.....
Account name: GREEN LEFT
Co-operative
bank, PO Box 250 , Delf House, Southway, SKELMERSDALE WN8 6WT
Sort
code: 089299
Account
no: 65284751
|
No comments:
Post a Comment