OK, as a lowly District Councillor down in rural Gloucestershire, I'll say it: nobody else seems to want to.
Fielding a credible Green candidate in Makerfield isn't just an option. It's the only path forward for the Green Party.
There! I feel better for saying that!
Yes, the tactical landscape is messy. With Reform UK throwing everything at this seat and Labour in turmoil, standing carries the risk of splitting the progressive vote. That's a real concern, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Stepping aside isn't a safety net. It's a surrender. It admits defeat before the first ballot is counted. It turns the Green Party into a footnote in a Labour-Reform drama, sacrificing our long-term mission for short-term tactical comfort.
We need to grow the Green vote share, maintain our independence, and force the political agenda to include Green priorities. We're building the infrastructure to challenge for power in 2029. Our mission is to replace Labour, not prop them up. 💚
If we run, we remain the protagonists of our own story. If we step aside, we become spectators in someone else's. 🏃♂️
Whatever the result, we stay true to our principles. ✊
#ukpol #GreenParty #GreenPriorities #ReplaceNotPropUp #Makerfield #Gloucestershire
Post
Replies:
8
Boosts:
4
I think this is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. If your goal is to grow the GPEW across the UK, then you are probably correct. Though if the results end up being a Reform Ltd victory, Labour a close second, and Greens winning enough votes that they're blamed for a Reform Ltd victory then I can also see that backfiring and causing a lot of nation-wide resentment towards the Greens.
But if your goal is to shift the Overton Window to the left, combat the rise of the far right, and increase progressive policies being pushed in government, then it's exactly the wrong strategy. The best outcome for this is that Burnham takes a seat, wins the Labour leadership, and has a few years to show that progressive policies help people before the next election. Labour can then enter the election on a message of 'look, we're working for you!' and the Greens on a message of 'look, that stuff worked but was too timid, let's do it even better!'.
I don't see any chance of Labour or the Greens winning an outright majority in the next election. But I do see a path to them winning enough seats between them to be able to govern (whether as a formal coalition or one of them as a minority government). If you want that, then helping the left wing of Labour reshape their party into one you'd be willing to collaborate with is a vital part of your strategy.
@david_chisnall I appreciate that but I think you’re misreading the goal here. I’m not a strategist plotting a ‘growth strategy’ for the party; I’m a local councillor watching the ground shift beneath our feet. And the fundamental goal of any political party isn’t just to ‘grow’, it’s to win power and govern effectively isn’t it?
You suggest that if Reform wins, the Greens might just be ‘blamed’ and face resentment. If we step aside, and Reform wins anyway (which the local polls suggest is more than likely), the narrative won’t be ‘Greens split the vote.’ It will be ‘Labour lost because they are unelectable.’ The Greens won’t be the villain; we’ll be the only ones who told the truth. If we run and lose, we’re a credible alternative. If we step aside and lose, we’re irrelevant.
Are you suggesting that helping Burnham win will ‘shift the Overton Window’ and allow Labour to ‘reshape’ into a partner we can collaborate with? I’ve seen this movie before! Labour doesn’t reshape when helped; they reshape when threatened. When the Greens step aside, Labour feels no pressure to move. They feel safe. They drift in whatever direction the wind blows. When we run and take votes, that is when Labour is forced to confront why they are losing. The idea that we should prop up a party that has consistently ignored our demands (like in Stroud) in the hope they will ‘learn’ to be progressive is a gamble with the country’s future.
You mention a path to a coalition or minority government. That requires trust and leverage. If we step aside, we have zero leverage. We are begging for scraps. If we run, we have leverage. We are the kingmakers, the alternative, the threat. I’m not trying to ‘grow the party’ for the sake of it. I’m trying to ensure that when the dust settles, the Greens are in the best position to effect change. It’s about being the only option people trust to stop the chaos. And right now, I think that means standing our ground.
Anyway, I wouldn’t want to make this call personally, it’s going to be a tough one for leadership!
I appreciate that but I think you’re misreading the goal here.
No, I think you and I have different goals and I'm trying to explain why your goals may not align with those of other people who would normally be your natural allies.
And the fundamental goal of any political party isn’t just to ‘grow’, it’s to win power and govern effectively isn’t it?
Ideally. This was the goal of the Labour Party, as distinct from the Labour Movement. But the goals of the Labour Movement were to move to a more equitable society. Winning power and governing were part of the strategy to achieve these goals, not the end goals. The only parties whose primary goals are to govern are those run by authoritarians. For everyone else, it's a means to an end and it might not be the most effective one.
If we run and lose, we’re a credible alternative.
That depends a lot on how badly you lose. There are a few scenarios:
Reform wins, Greens second, Labour a very distant third. Greens are a credible alternative.
Reform wins, Greens second, Labour third. Or, Reform wins, Labour second, Greens a close third. In both cases, Greens are seen by some as a credible alternative, by others as the party that needlessly split the vote, and let Reform win again. A lot of people who might vote Green will be worried about letting Reform in.
Greens win. Greens are seen as a credible alternative.
Labour win, Reform second, potential Green voters vote tactically for Labour. Greens lose credibility.
Of these, which seem more likely? The only one that seems like a good outcome is Greens winning outright. Every other outcome is worse for the country, the Green Party, or both.
Are you suggesting that helping Burnham win will ‘shift the Overton Window’ and allow Labour to ‘reshape’ into a partner we can collaborate with?
Yes, based on his policies and track record.
When the Greens step aside, Labour feels no pressure to move.
I don't think any of this applies in an election that is happening specifically because the left wing of the Labour Party wants to get their most popular person into Parliament to mount a leadership challenge. The Labour Party isn't a monolith. By running a candidate, you risk both alienating and weakening the part that still remembers their party exists to support the Labour Movement.
If we step aside, we have zero leverage
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. If you step aside in a general election, maybe. But in one by election? How much leverage do you think losing a by election will give you? Or do you think the Greens can win there?
I’m not trying to ‘grow the party’ for the sake of it. I’m trying to ensure that when the dust settles, the Greens are in the best position to effect change
And is it the strengthening Reform or the strengthening the right wing of Labour that you think will best help to achieve that goal?
Anyway, I wouldn’t want to make this call personally, it’s going to be a tough one for leadership!
It's a chance for your leadership to very loudly and publicly put country before party. If their strategists can't figure out how to capitalise on that, they don't stand a chance in a general election.
@david_chisnall @eco-g Settle for nothing now or settle for nothing later.
@eco-g hmm. may i drink the devil's advocat a little?
i would hope those green principles included the idea of doing the best thing for the country, even if that turned out not to be the best thing for the green party in the short term?
turning Labour away from their current path is a Public Good, in my opinion. Doing something to hinder that might turn out to be the first bad thing i've seen the greens do under your new leader.
@fishidwardrobe You raise a fair point about doing the ‘best thing for the country.’ But that argument hinges on a massive assumption: that Andy Burnham is guaranteed to win Makerfield. I’m not convinced he is.
Look at the ground in Wigan and the surrounding areas. The sentiment isn’t just ‘anti-Starmer’; it’s deeply anti-establishment, and that is fuelling Reform UK’s surge. The local elections showed Reform sweeping every ward in the constituency. If the ‘writing on the subway walls’, let alone the flying flags in those parts is any indicator, Reform is the favourite to win this seat, not Burnham.
If we step aside hoping to save Burnham, and he still loses to Reform, we haven’t done the ‘best thing for the country.’ We’ve just sacrificed our vote for nothing. The result? A Reform MP in Westminster, a politically terminal Burnham stuck as Mayor, and Keir Starmer remaining in power with his authority shattered, bouncing around Westminster turning everything he touches to ‘poo’ with his reverse Midas touch.
And let’s be honest about the history: Labour always asks us not to field a candidate. Stroud in the last general election is the textbook example. Their activists bullying us into steping aside, offering nothing in return, and there’s never any reciprocity. Why would Makerfield be any different?
So, do you really think Burnham will win? If the answer is ‘maybe not,’ then the Green Party stepping aside achieves absolutely zero for the country. Fielding a credible candidate isn’t just about principles; it’s about betting on the reality.
We need to be ready for the two possible futures:
- If Burnham wins and resigns as Mayor: A Mayoral by-election opens up within weeks. That is the real prize. A high-profile contest where the Greens can prove we can govern at scale.
- If Burnham loses: He remains a wounded Mayor, Labour is in meltdown, and the Greens are the only credible progressive alternative heading into 2029.
If we step aside, we’re just spectators watching the country drift further into chaos, with no plan B. We need to be on the ballot, ready to pick up the pieces and challenge for power, not just watch from the sidelines, imho.
@eco-g
> that argument hinges on a massive assumption: that Andy Burnham is guaranteed to win Makerfield. I’m not convinced he is.
granted. that's rather my point. you'd be decreasing his chances.
if he were guaranteed to win, then the greens also standing there would be fine.
@fishidwardrobe You’re absolutely right that Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win. And that’s precisely why standing is non-negotiable.
If the Greens step aside hoping for a Labour miracle that might not happen, we’ve already lost. We’ve accepted that the only valid political outcomes are Labour or Reform(ex-conservatives). That is the duopoly.
Breaking the two-party stranglehold isn’t about calculating the odds of a specific candidate winning a specific seat. It’s about refusing to validate the idea that voters only have two choices. Even if Burnham loses, a strong Green showing proves that the ‘lesser of two evils’ narrative is a trap.
Democracy doesn’t advance by hoping the ‘right’ establishment candidate wins. It advances by forcing the establishment to compete for votes they can’t take for granted. That’s the only way we get real change. 💚
