Post
(1/2)
@lightweight @jeremy_pm All I can say to that is, good luck. I'll be happy if that surge in UK Greens polling translates into winning seats in an FPP election. I'd be thrilled if the same Green surge happened here. But I see little sign of that so far, and I'm not holding my breath.
@isaacfreeman
> the main thing is to stay true to your principles, remain a credible institution, and be ready to take advantage when the old order collapses
100%. As they are now in the UK, the demographics will shift, Millennials/ Zoomers will outvote Boomers/ Xers, and things will change. This time we need our ideas to be the ones lying around when the crisis comes. We need to be everywhere, talking to everyone, finding common ground, building consensus.
@isaacfreeman
> this isn't anything major we're doing wrong, just a general complacency in our society fed by pervasive denialist propaganda
Fair comment, but I think there are a few things the Greens could do different.
They were one of the first NZ parties to use email lists and to have a blog (remember FrogBlog?), back when most politicos still thought the net was a phase. They could be making more use of new media; podcasting, fediverse, ATmosphere, etc
@strypey For sure. Being everywhere is important, and needs to be organised when you have to do it on a volunteer basis.
@lightweight @jeremy_pm
@isaacfreeman @strypey @lightweight
I know it’s not directly connected but I think Mamdani has provided a great blueprint for how politicians and political parties can reach people who may be outside of their assumed supporter base and energise politics.
Of course being a good looking and charismatic leader doesn’t hurt either. I like the way Chloe is becoming more confident in what she’s proposing.
(1/2)
One thing I agree with James Shaw about is growing active membership. It was crucial to Corbyn's Labour and it's one of the UK Greens most important achievements with Zack. But it's not just growth that matters, but *how* you grow.
Growth needs to be slow and steady enough for new members to be orientated into the party's structure and culture, and for those to evolve without splintering (side note: I suspect this is what TPM are reckoning with).
@strypey I agree on growing membership and maintaining culture. I think what's critical there is that there be a wider movement and workdview that the party represents. There is a solid small-g green perspective that grounds economic and social concerns in ecological science. It needs a political wing, thus the Green Party. The specific people are important tactically, but if all current MPs and members disappeared overnight, a new green party would rapidly form. No other existing party is going to advance a green political agenda.
This is why I was never particularly interested in Your Party. That's some people trying to catalyse a movement, not a movement creating a party. Likewise TOP in New Zealand.
@jeremy_pm @lightweight
@isaacfreeman
> Your Party ... some people trying to catalyse a movement, not a movement creating a party
I'll admit I don't know much about the details. But there definitely seemed to be a movement propelling Corbyn to the Labour leadership. Didn't the party membership swell in the leadup to his election for the first time in decades?
(1/2)
@strypey When I say movement, I mean an ideology that's expressed in many projects and institutions. The green movement isn't just the Green Party, it's also Greenpeace, Forest & Bird, the Sierra Club, and many other strong organisations. It's grounded in science and has a coherent economic analysis. The party belongs to that movement, not the other way around.
Corbyn seems like a decent guy, but I don't see a movement behind him. At most he's appealing to a movement that the Labour Party used to represent, but that wasn't enough to overcome the neoliberal movement that it currently exists to serve.
I'm being super reductive of course, and perhaps there's a better word for what I mean. But I'm generally unconvinced by parties that form around particular people. No matter how rapidly they grow in the short term, they're not stable.
@jeremy_pm @lightweight
@isaacfreeman
> But I'm generally unconvinced by parties that form around particular people
Totally agree. But to me it seems like the idea that this is built around Corbyn, comes from the same place as the idea being against IDF genocide is antisemitic; establishment media.
Corbyn is one among dozens of elected MPs and councillors getting behind the new party. That they got re-elected with Sir Stammer's knives in their backs suggests there is a movement behind them.
@strypey That's fair. There are certainly people behind them, it's just not obvious to me that there's a movement in the sense I'm (somewhat idiosyncratically) using. I don't have a sense of any overall ideology beyond general leftism, or other Strong institutions sharing the same values in other spheres and that makes me feel the entire project is vulnerable.
I'm open to the possibility that I've been affected by a misleading portrayal of the project as “Corbynite” when there's much more there than one man. But fundamentally I know what a Green Party is because I know what the green worldview is. I don't have a good mental model for what Your Party is about.
@jeremy_pm @lightweight
@isaacfreeman
> just not obvious to me that there's a movement
Your criticism is fair when applied to George Galloway for example. The Respect electoral machine was built around his personal support base, and an alliance with leftish Muslims and the unreformed Leninists of the SWP. It never had more than one MP and never made much of a dent in Labour.
I think the new party involving Corbyn is qualitatively different.
(1/2)
@strypey Galloway is definitely a much clearer case. Perhaps it would be fair to say that there's a spectrum from person-driven to movement-driven. Your Party is somewhere in the middle. My view is that it's not movementy enough to survive, but reasonable people may differ. I am pretty biased towards the movementy side of the spectrum.
I guess we also all tend to perceive the parties we know best as movementy, and reduce those we don't know to personalities.
@jeremy_pm @lightweight
@isaacfreeman
> there's a spectrum from person-driven to movement-driven. Your Party is somewhere in the middle
That seems fair.
> we also all tend to perceive the parties we know best as movementy, and reduce those we don't know to personalities
Good insight. I saw the Alliance as movement-driven and Winston First as person-driven. An early WF supporter probably saw the Alliance as the Jim Anderton party, and believed they were part of a movement.
Here's a great conversation with Jeremy Corbyn on the Blindboy podcast;
https://shows.acast.com/blindboy/episodes/jeremy-corbyn
Corbyn envisions a party that stands for a caring society, global peace and environmental sustainability. He also talks about using Citizens' Assemblies and other radical new forms of democracy. These are the 4 core principles of Green parties around the world.
I wish Blindboy has asked Corbyn why he isn't joining UK Greens.
https://acast.com
@strypey Thanks, I'll have a listen.
I do find it hard to imagine what role a former Labour leader could have in a Green Party. I suspect it would be too disruptive to have him as an MP, and the media would assume he was running everything. I'd also be concerned that he'd model it as a left party instead of a green party, or at least assume that the distinction was more superficial than it really is.
Perhaps there's a need in the UK for something like New Zealand's Alliance Party, built essentially on an electoral pact for various progressive parties to fight FPP elections together. But the Green political brand was stronger on its own once we shifted to MMP. The UK Greens may have already achieved that without PR.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
