Why Aren't More People Going Green?

The Scottish independence debate prompted numerous claims from the left of the Scots actually having a chance to decide their own future. This isn't a new complaint - many groups, Occupy and the People's Assembly among others, have been posing it, especially since the economic collapse.

The Scottish independence debate prompted numerous claims from the left of the Scots actually having a chance to decide their own future. This isn't a new complaint - many groups, Occupy and the People's Assembly among others, have been posing it, especially since the economic collapse.

I think there is a large aspect of contradiction in all this championing of 'democracy' when, like it or not, the Conservatives did get more votes than any other party in the last election, and by a non-negligible amount (7%). Yet I feel there is some merit to the arguments, partly because I read the Guardian and half-swallow its politics, but mostly because polling shows that people in the UK, when separated from party-political allegiances at least, actually mostly favour public ownership of the NHS, energy companies, Royal Mail and railway companies - only the former of which is actually, to generalise, under public ownership ('state' ownership, which tends to have more negative connotations, if you prefer). And because polls during this government have shown widespread rejection of austerity, sometimes by margins of about two to one, along with support for reducing inequality even if it cuts overall wealth (However, one should be wary of reading too much into these economic surveys, as recent polling shows that, despite significant cuts, 65% did not think the quality of council provision was falling, and of course there's age-old political adage of people wanting lower taxes and more public spending...)

But I'm not here to preach either way. Merely to suggest - given there is such a mood where the newly political Russell Brand is not universally laughed off as some kind of ridiculous Private Eye satire come true - that people stop complaining about a lack of 'political voice' when they have a perfectly good outlet for it - the Green Party. Because despite passionate grassroots campaigning and support for the - popular - policies described above, they gained a measly 1% of the vote in the last election and that has only risen to around 2-5% (and even that may be benefiting from the 'Shy Tory' factor).

This is not meant as a sarcastic suggestion. I suggest it because, while I wouldn't vote for the Green Party, I do respect them and think they are decent people and because their lack of support is so inimical to voters' stated complaints and preferences. Anyone who complains about the self-serving mendacity or beige professionalism of current politicians would be well-served to remember that Caroline Lucas - the Green Party's first and only MP, in Brighton got arrested for standing up to fracking on environmental grounds, by causing a roadblock and stubbornly resisting moving. If people want more more nationalisation and less austerity, why has the major political shift during this government, from former Tory and Labour voters, been to a party headed up by a former commodities trader which believes in "free trade, lower taxes, personal freedom and responsibility" and that "the state in Britain has become too large, too expensive and too dominant over civil society"? It's the political equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas...or at least it would seem that way. (A big caveat is that it's a little selective to choose those measures of polling. Recent public attitude aligned far less well with the (typical) left on welfare, immigration and the EU, but still I think support for the Green Party is surprisingly low).

The most obvious reason for the lack of Green support is the - understandable - idea that they will just be a wasted vote for left-leaning voters, letting the Tories in by depriving Labour of a vote. But a lot of people are becoming with Labour now so this idea should hold less water. A big factor in must be an image problem for the Greens; tarnished by the idea it's a single-issue party full of 'self-righteous humanities graduates'. The latter is arguable, but the former isn't, whatever you think of the policies themselves (the party name is probably a double-edged sword in this respect).

It also doesn't get a great rap in the press. Unsurprisingly The Sun, Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph aren't too enamoured to them or their motives, but more left-leaning papers such as the Guardian, surprisingly, and the Daily Mirror don't give them much attention. Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee, among others, comment a lot that Labour is not strong enough in its left-wing convictions, which is arguable, but to me it begs the question: 'why not consider going Green?' In his most recent article, leftier-than-thou Seumas Milne describes an "insurgent campaign" (for a Yes vote but "present among Labour voters across Britain"), "fuelled by a rejection of austerity, privatisation, illegal wars and the grip of the Westminster elite". But when he considers who will represent such people in England, he doesn't even mention the Green Party, instead discussing Ukip and the Tories (critically).

That's even for left-wing people who go in for the idea of conventional game of politics. Russell Brand has a lot to answer for here, since (somehow) a fair number of people actually think there's something in his idea of not voting as a positive and viable means to change, so surely he's shooting his cause in the foot by telling people not to vote. And therefore probably hurting the Green Party, which his views are closely aligned to.

I think represents Brand represents a growing trend in individualistic politics; selfie politics, if you will, whereby people are happy to be promote their politics but not so much to put them to use in the difficulty world complete with sometimes grubby compromises that is party politics, where their views would actually be of some use in our democratic system. Herein lies, I think, a couple of paradoxes of the left. There are big strains of individualism and libertarianism within left-wing movements sitting alongside ideas of co-operation and 'solidarity'. The ideas aren't necessarily irreconcilable, but they present issues. Is it 'co-operation' for rich people to be made to pay half or more of their income to the state, or 'coercion'? How tolerant should we be of what could equally be called intolerance or 'freely expressed opinion'? Is religion liberating or oppressive? And so on and so forth. Also, there has been an interesting coalition of much of the left and the libertarian right on state control over data in the wake of the Snowden revelations.

Part of the problem is that the idea of protest and progress against the establishment is pretty fundamental to the left, so what to do when the left becomes the establishment? Looking across the Channel, in just over two years as President, leader of the Socialist Party Francois Hollande has seen its approval rating drop as low 13%, amid a stagnating economy and unemployment doubling in 2013 to just over 11%.

A look at the Green Party's record in power in Brighton since 2011 may also be instructive for this. Their running of the city has seen a vote of no confidence, 'rebel' Greens trying to oust council leader Jason Kitcat, rubbish going uncollected during a six-week dispute with refuse workers (in which Mr Kitcat was trying to push through changes while his deputy was protesting them with binmen, supported by MP Caroline Lucas) and widespread opposition to a proposed 4.75% council tax rise. To be sure, these will be not dissimilar to some problems in councils up and down the UK. But what makes it different is that the gritty realities of governance are much further removed from the Greens than the other three parties - and there are some measures they have introduced which, like them or not, only they could have introduced. For example, the (abandoned) plan to implement 'meat-free Mondays' at the council and removing Mr and Mrs from official council forms.

Also telling is the internet, which is riven with passionate debates about what you can and can't say about certain minorities ('intersectionality' basically); throwaway lines about Brazilian transexuals or how men tend to be more campaigning in their atheism; if men can and should be feminists; what privilege people have and if/how much that disqualifies them from certain debates...and so on and so on. To be blunt, identity politics, with groups making various claims to their position on the victimhood hierarchy. It's all certainly too much for 'militant feminist' Julie Bindel. This is harsh, because there is inequality and unfairness in the world that merits discussion, but in truth the idea of too many exponents of this kind of politics in serious power scares me.

I've somewhat argued against the thing I was suggesting. But still, if you think the UK is in the grip of a suffocating 'neo-liberal consensus', why not put your morals where your mouth is and vote Green, warts and all...


What's Hot