The Daily (Maybe)

Last blog on Green Party conference I promise! Things have been hectic since I got back and had to worry about my Dad who was admitted to hospital with a mystery problem so I'm a touch behind. Apologies.

There are several lasting images of the Swansea conference that will be lodged in my mind for some time to come.

Firstly my wonderful hosts that I stayed with, Jan and Andy, who were welcoming above and beyond the call of duty. Of course, I will look back on shame on the fact that (sleeping in a bunk bed) I somehow managed to tip the whole thing down on top of me when getting up in the morning. Ouch.

Also the fact that they live on top of a *mountain* when the conference was down by the beach gave me one of the most murderous walks home I've ever encountered. Half way back I came to the bottom of a *thing* called Constitution Hill which stretched upwards before me at what, I swear, was something like a 45% angle. By the time I was at the top I was praying for a swift dose of pneumonia to finish me off.

Of course the view of Swansea bay was beautiful, although difficult to appreciate whilst clutching your chest and gasping for dear life.

Another memory that will scar me is the review. This is the cruel and unusual punishment where Green Party delegates get up and perform their party pieces, or little skits based on the goings on of the conference. There were some highlights. The choir was very accomplished (on the whole, cough, cough) and the conference mix where the sound guy had recorded the speeches and then sampled and spliced it together was very, very funny.

Alas it was not all of this quality and I was left clutching my stomach as it spasmed with a mixture of horror and laughter at some of the turns people thought was appropriate to do in a public place. I mean, yes, they are very brave for doing it and we're all friends but man... it was painful.

Green bloggers fringe was very enjoyable and I found it really useful. Myself, Natalie and Sue were supposedly keeping it together but the general discussions, questions and anecdotes made for a very enjoyable hour and a half. It also reminds me that the more you do the more people get you to do... a lesson I'm always forgetting, so I came out of the whole experience having found myself volunteered for a number of tasks - I better get on with them I guess.

On the politics I'm more than ever convinced that the Green Party is unequivocally progressive, democratically organised and punching well below its weight. That lack of traction between the leadership and the members, and the different views on what the Party is actually for really need addressing.

For me that means more involvement if I want to try to improve its direction and its ability to make things happen. That's a tall order, I'm quite comfortable as an independent activist and am enjoying my largely unlabelled socialist status. However, I guess there's no point in seeing a problem if you aren't going to contribute to fixing it.

4 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the final day so I'd be really interested to hear what people thought about that - or any other observations about conference.

How did it compare to Brighton? What did you think of the leadership debate? Where do we go from here?

I was really pleased with the emergency motion on defending council housing and that the motion I sponsored on ALMOs was passed... but how do we get councillors to go along with this?

Some Greens have already blogged on conference. Greenman, for example, talks about motions, and possible consequences of conference. Ruscombe Green talks about the localisation debates. Peter mentions the leadership debate. Noel Lynch talks about supermarkets and Mark talks about the Corrib project.

Let me know if you've blogged on this and I'll add you to the list.

7 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

Saturday: The Green Left fringe at Swansea conference was held jointly with the Trade Union group and seemed very well attended. The two speakers were Derek Wall and Andy Johnstone, the head honcho of the Welsh T&G.

Unfortunately I missed Derek's contribution but Andy was a very interesting and open minded speaker. He spoke well on the problematic relationship that the union movement had with Labour and with a wry smile described Labour's term of office as "ups and downs" with the unions "trapped in a relationship" with the party of government.

He described Tony Woodley as a "man of great vision" to which I raised my eyebrows, but this aside Andy made some excellent points, particularly about the idea of reskilling workers, and changing what we produce as well as simply protecting workers rights.

In the car industry we need a little bit of "beating swords into ploughshares" and in order to do so the union movement needed to raise its game and the level of debate and struggle.

I raised a point about how we bring the trade union movement into the Green Party which had to involve taking the Green Party into the trade union movement. All too often Greens are well intentioned about the unions but they are rarely the first port of call when organising a campaign or giving support to those who are already fighting for a set of progressive politics.

We need to have engagement with the unions where we have common cause because it makes sense to combine out strengths where we agree, but we also need to engage where we have disagreements - and that needs discussing these points as friends. Where we argue over nuclear power or nuclear weapons for instance we can also link arms over the trade union freedom bill or defending the rights of agency workers.

2 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

Saturday: The day of the big set piece battle. The previous couple of days had seen forces being mustered on either side and negotiations and maneuvering over the minor points and amendments to THE motion of the conference that everyone was excised about. D1: do we ballot the members on whether the Green Party should change it's structures to have a leader/deputy leader or co-leaders rather than the current system of principal speakers who have no vote on the executive?

link[i-link]I blogged on this before but to fill you in if you haven't read that post there is a long standing debate inside of the party on whether to have structures that the press can readily understand or pose ourselves as a party quite unlike the mainstream parties with their spin and undemocratic top down models.

Over at the New Statesman female Principal Speaker Sian Berry says that the current system is frustrating due to the difficulties the press have in understanding Green Party structures. "I come up against this all the time, and invariably find myself using up valuable broadcast time explaining the curious way I have to be described."

Derek, our other principal speaker (the one with the tie) on the other hand has a different view. He told the BBC that "the Greens should not be "sucked in" to having a figurehead like other parties... "I do think being called a leader has the potential to corrupt. I look forward to being replaced as principal speaker by someone better but I will mourn if speakers make way for old-style, ego-led political figures. I have no easy answers, I won't tell you any comforting lies but I know my history and I can recognise a trap however well disguised."

One of my concerns had been that this debate in particular would see tempers frayed and problems with delegates behaviour. However, it was one of the most fraternal debates I've ever seen in a political organisation when there are such deeply entrenched positions on both sides.

One of the reasons for this is undoubtedly a lot of work had gone in beofre hand to achieve concensus over at least parts of the motion. Also the motion was to consult, debate and then ballot the membership - not to change the structures from this conference. There were people on the "no to a leader" side who found this idea rather appealing as a way of popularising and discussing how the Greens do politics with people both inside and outside of the party.

On this I completely agree and it was the reason I ended up voting with the motion (which passed *reasonably* easily) without actually having to make my mind up yet on how I would actually vote comethe ballot. As an opportunity to discuss how its possible to do politics from the base up it becomes rather exciting, rather than a dry debate about internal structures.

The amendments, of course, were not so cut and dried. Some slipped through uncontesciously - like A3 inserting the sentence "We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers." Which is a curious clause to have in a motion about adopting a leader, but I like it.

We also voted to scrap the list of inspirational figures, which I pointed out earlier was not well thought out. Motions to delay the ballot or raise the bar rather high (like having to have 3 MPs) were squashed quite unceremoniously although the consultation was lengthened which meant that there was both more time for a proper detailed debate and also that the process would not clash with the re-election of our current post holders.

A motion that the "leaders" have no vote on GPEx clearly fell with Caroline Lucas arguing that the leader can't be accountable if they are not responsible for any decisions. It seemed a good point.

The absolutely disgraceful amendments that you could only stand for these positions if you'd only been a member for ten or eight years (or that they already be an elected MP or MEP) found no favour with anyone at all and it was rather curious that you had people ostensibly arguing for a non-hierarchical structure that only a small elite could take part in. Hmmm. Of course it leads to the suspicion that it was a wrecking amendment designed to make the motion fall and rightly delegates had no truck with that sort of thing.

In the end what we had was a politcal debate where attempts to play silly buggers were mercifully small, and where they did occur they were given short shrift. People take their party seriously, and want to promote radical politics rather than engage in a prolonged faction fight. Excellent.

0 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

Friday and Saturday: Derek Wall and Sian Berry, joint principal speakers for the Green Party, gave their first ever keynote speeches to conference in their new positions too which they were elected late last year.

swansea07[i-swansea07]Both are left-wing greens but both have very different styles and emphasis and it was interesting hearing their speeches - Derek on Friday and Sian on Saturday.

Derek spoke strongly and noticeably without notes, although I feel obliged to point out he was wearing the most extra-ordinary tie I have ever seen. It was clear from the beginning he had no intention of making a safe, inoffensive speech too bland to be worth listening to. He wanted to emphasis "disturbing thoughts".

He started his speech by immediately referring to 'catastrophe' and focusing on the problems facing the world and the green movement. In fact this was probably the most controversial aspect of his speech with a number of people I spoke to afterwards concerned that the Greens are too often associated with doom and gloom rather than positive approaches and solutions.

I tend to agree on the point, but Derek carried it off well and it was a good antidote to the patience and respectableness of those who perhaps are not fully engaged with the seriousness of the current global problems.

Again Derek was broad in his approach - denouncing imperialism, talking about the trade union freedom bill, calling for direct action against Exxon and Gordon Brown's budget asking us to work more, commute more, in fact do everything damaging more - and in essence deepen pour unhappiness.

He said "Brown may have commissioned the Stern report, but there's little evidence that he's actually read it." He also had a few good quips in there, I particularly liked the one where he described carbon offsets as planting a tree on stolen land whilst mainlining petroleum.

The second criticism of Derek's speech was that some people thought that it didn't feel like a speech just weeks before an election in which the whole party was supposed to be mobilised. I think that's true to an extent, but I also think taken together, as a team, where Derek provided some intellectual and well thought out meat, Sian gave us upbeat electoral ambition and enthusiasm. One of the advantages I suppose of not having a single figure head.

Sian emphasised how, at the ballot box, we're given alternatives between different shades of grey - but the mainstream politicians have begun to understand that green issues are good for votes. But as she said "green is not a sharp new suit you can wear" and if we wanted politicians who were committed to social justice and combating environmental destruction then we need the real deal - not someone whose focus group tells them to look green this week.

Sian, like Derek, wanted to start a debate in the party - but Sian's vision was about the party contesting each and every seat at the next general election in England and Wales. She compared the fact that at the last local elections we contested one in eight seats and the last general one in three. For her, if we are to be seen as a real national force that means giving everyone in the country the opportunity to vote for a Green.

As I say, this might be a bit electoral for some - me included - and she was setting the bar high - but that was what her speech was for. Whilst Derek gave us something to think about Sian was giving the Party something to do. I thought these messages complimented each other well, particularly when taken with Rhodri's speech on Thursday placing us firmly as a radical, progressive party - committed to working class people and addressing the real problems we face in our everyday lives.

After thought: Just a note to remind people that last year at Brighton there was a row about the election, which Derek went on to win. At the time I said that "any male principle speaker elected without Keith on the ballot paper would have no legitimacy and a decision of that nature could spark a civil war in the party" and I think Derek conference speech demonstrates that to be true.

There was a concensus that this was a good speech, even from those who did not vote for him - but how well received would this important key note speech have been if the members had not had the opportunity to vote for their prefered candidate? It's clear the decision that was taken was the best one for the party - and therefore totally correct.

2 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

Friday: Well, I've broken the ice and made my first speech to conference floor. Speaking to a constitutional motion that, although it won a majority of 98 to 56 did not win the 2/3rds required to pass. Ah, I've had worse.

The motion in question was about opening up party structures reducing the restrictions on joining GPEx (the national executive) and bringing it in line with the restrictions on standing for general election. The short motion essentially brought the bar down from having to have been a member of the party for two years in order to stand for election to GPEx to one.

My points were simple. First of all this motion (D3) dealt with eligibility to stand for election rather than proposing people just go on the exec willy nilly (there had been some mention of the idea of people being 'parachuted in'), as green issues come to the fore more and more people will join the party bringing with them talent, enthusiasm, commitment and a wealth of experience.

Whilst GPEx is not the only way that members can help a party, at times the members of the party may well find newer members' skills and capabilities useful on that body. The movers of the motion (myself included) do not believe such people should be debarred from standing for GPEx. Members should be allowed to consider them.

I feel pretty strongly that parties should not have classes of membership and you are either a member or you aren't - so anything that restricts party members from playing a full and equal role in the party makes me feel uncomfortable to be honest.

Unfortunately, my arguments were not enough, oh well.

1 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

Friday: Well, that was the ironic subtitle of the session on democracy and localisation in which one, two, three, FOUR people fell asleep simultaneously... and snored! How the poor speakers coped with the gurgling, moaning sounds of the sleepers coupled with the rather childish giggling going on round the room I'll never know. Well done them.

snoring[i-snoring]It wasn't as if it was a particularly boring session or anything and both speakers from Make Votes Count gave strong, workmanlike talks, although, if I were to criticise them, they probably did speak for too long and not leave enough time for a good debate which I expect contributed to the soporific effects of the session.

I found the session particularly interesting, what with my interest in democratic systems, and the effects of the two tier system that they use in Wales and Scotland (a kind of partial PR) that lead to tensions between the First Past The Pot AMs and the list AMs seems to be something that rarely, if ever, discused.

What surprised me was that even the Tory Party in Wales now call for electoral reform of local government, obviously there experience of the Welsh Assembly has not been a bad as they had feared. Goodness, even dinosaurs can change.

Interestingly, parties like the Lib Dems who have a formal commitment to PR seem to forget this whenever they find themselves in a position of power due to FPTP elections, like in Cambridge, and you'll be hard pressed to find a Lib Dem advocate of local reform.

One of the things the sleep club could really have done with, which the lack of discussion probably contributed to was actual content to the political discussion. For instance the speakers mentioned the effect on turnout without discussing the context of three party consensus. Welsh Assembly elections may still have poor turn out but no matter what the system we're still voting for the same old grey parties.

One core argument against a more proportional system is that far right parties will make gains under this kind of system, but actually I think the reverse is true. Where have the BNP made the majority of their gains? In areas where the Labour Party has had an unassailable majority and so the voters have been taken for granted. Sometimes the BNP are the first party to be seen in an area for twenty years.

With a system that meant the parties actually had to have the support of the electorate everywhere perhaps large numbers would not feel so disenfranchised. Perhaps the main parties wuld also begin to pay a little more attention to working class people rather than their bosses. We live in hope.

This seems an important point to me anyway. Otherwise its just about statistics not the passion to fundamentally change society, making it more democratic, our institutions more representative and to shift away from the dirty and dangerous political system we have iin the UK at present - one that even the EU is investigating so disturbed are they by the way its currently operating.

2 comments Labels: Democracy, Green Party, Swansea07

Thursday: Having a, cough, "history" on the far left I've been to a fair few conference in my time and so one of the novel things about Green Party conference is the way in which it is actually organised in an open and democratically accessible manner.

swansea07[i-swansea07]Although some conference goers complain about this or that decision or allude to the Party becoming less accountable it always has to be seen in the context that these people are not only given ample space to debate and raise their points it is a norm of conference that delegates have a great deal of control over how it is structured.

Obviously this process starts well before conference begins but I'll just mention how this works on the first day of conference. SOC is the body that does the main organising and arranging of conference and it issues a written report to conference (which you can read online).

Delegates are then free to come and discuss this in a workshop lasting an hour and twenty minutes, and they do. They support, oppose, and attempt to amend the report - and consequently the way conference is run. No shadowy Conference Arrangements Committee with a commitment to call exactly who it wants to call and do as it pleases.

Thursday morning there were eight amendments to the report all of which were hotly contested and then brought to a full conference session later in the day. Conference as a whole then discussed at length the various decisions that had been made on its behalf and made decisions on whether they supported them.

So, some amendments had been ruled out of order the proposers wanted them ruled back in. We could all read what they were before hand as even these motions were carried in the conference handbook. We voted 54% to 46% to rule them back onto conference floor.

Three amendments to the report that SOC vehemently opposed were carried easily. Three others were defeated easily and a rather tricky motion on how we were to take the leadership debate ended up as 71 for 88 against and one abstention.

I'm not filling you in on the detail because I think these are all crucial decisions but to demonstrate how a conference can be run democratically using a minimum of conference time (although the discussion could have gone on for a week) and that f various positions put their point of view sometimes they win and sometimes they lose... what's to complain about there. The context of this decision making process means that every delegate has the opportunity to put in a lot, a little or no effort into how their conference is run - and that progressive politics has to have democratic structures at its heart.

The personal behaviour of delegates can, at times, be problematic but so far this conference has been mercifully political in its disagreements, rather free from hidden factions or dominating control of the central organisers, much to their frustration. Although, rather embarressingly, the soundman did have a strop at one point and turn off the mikes which was absolutely surreal - I couldn't even work out what he'd got angry about... but this was the exception, not the rule.

4 comments Labels: Democracy, Green Party, Swansea07

Thursday: An excellent and interesting start to conference with Rhodri Griffiths, one of the leading Welsh Greens and potentially the first Green Welsh Assembly Member.

link[i-link]Speaking in confident, calm and measured tones Rhodri came across as a level headed, sensible but passionate politician. One of the interesting things about the way he framed the debate was that he was firmly positioning himself in the context of the historic shift inside of the Labour Party away from the gains of Social Democracy.

Whilst Labour had once been a party of radical change, in terms of votes for women, the national health service and nationalisation of the railways we now have a party that sees everything ass a business opportunity, including global warming with the leader of Labour in Wales having recently waxed lyrical on the benefits climate change could bring to Wales.

Keir Hardy may once have been a pioneer of radical reform but now, accord to Rhodri, it is left for a progressive party like the Greens to push for real change and that it is the Green that must be the new voice of radical politics.

Nice start to conference positioning the Greens well to the left of Labour and as the defender of public services.

0 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07

One of the most hotly contested questions at the coming Green Party conference will be that of whether to have a leader(s). It's a question that has consistently arisen over the last few years and has very entrenched positions on both sides.

swansea07[i-swansea07]The motion in question calls for a binding ballot of the membership to once and for all settle the argument, there's even a petition for it here and Another Green World puts the other side here. A quick glance down the names on the first petition will reveal a) some silly entries and b) that signatories come from what could crudely be described as from both the left and right of the party.

The debate, in my opinion, is much more about attitudes towards elections than necessarily how progressive / reactionary a particular member is. As the petition says "we believe that the use of the term leader is a helpful and appropriate tool in helping us convince the public of the urgent need for a green society and a green world" In other words it's a tactical consideration and should be considered as such.

My natural inclination is to have some form of collective, democratically elected (and therefore accountable) body rather than invest too much prestige in one or two people. For instance I've spoken about the "leaders" of the anti-war movement here and here. However, I've got an open mind on the question and will be interested to see the arguments (and behaviour) on both sides of the debate.

As I understand it one of the main reasons for pushing the idea of (co)leader(s) is that there is a consistent confusion on the part of the press and the public over the current terms principal speakers, terms deliberately designed to promote the idea of an open and pluralist party. I don't know how significant that is and it's easy to find a scape goat for how little press minority parties get, but there may well be something in it.

There are a number of hostile amendments to the leadership motion, which as always makes me slightly tetchy. These include not bringing in the system until the Greens have three MPs, delaying the ballot to just before a possible general election, or a clause stating that someone has to have been in the party for eight or ten years before they can stand for the position, which reeks of contempt for the members of the party. There are also some useful additions and amendments, which I may or may not vote for, but clearly have a far more constructive intent.

There is an amendment, for instance, about the election for leader being every two years and in the intervening year having a vote of confidence. I'm not happy about this at all - I mean it's far more damaging for the members to vote non-confidence in their leaders than it is for them to simply select someone new. The press could portray, for instance, Derek's election as principal speaker as a sign that the Greens are moving to the left, whilst if we'd have had to no confidence Keith Taylor first they could portray the whole thing as the Greens falling apart, which we weren't. Personally I think that amendment would be a well intentioned mistake were we to pass it.

There's also an amendment calling for the introduction of Emmeline Pankhurst as an inspirational figure - surely that should be Sylvia? Emmaline supported the First World War and encouraged the giving out of white feathers to young men who weren't eager to die for the British Empire, apparently coming up with the natty slogan "intern them all". Which actually makes her the enemy and not very inspirational. I digress.

Whatever way the vote goes I hope the debate is conducted fraternally and seriously - with passion but without rancour. As I say I'm currently leaning towards opposing the motion - but as it's intent is for a ballot of the membership rather than jumping straight to have a leader then I'm very much open to the idea of a full and proper discussion in the party which perhaps ends this rather divisive topic, at least for the time being.

7 comments Labels: Green Party, Swansea07