In the UK general elections use the First Past The Post system to elect Members of Parliament, with the country being divided into 650 constituencies that each elect a single MP. To become an MP for a constituency a candidate must simply gain a plurality of votes, rather than a majority, meaning in practise that many MPs are elected without even receiving a majority of votes in their constituency. On a national scale this can therefore mean that parties receive far more seats than they do votes, such as in the case of the Conservatives in the 2015 General Election, where they received just 37% of the national vote but a majority of seats and thus essentially all the power in Parliament. Similarly the SNP received 50% of votes in Scotland, but managed to acquire 95% of the seats. However this also means that some parties are severely underrepresented, as shown most clearly in the case of UKIP who received 12.7% of the national vote, but only 0.2% of seats. Regardless of opinion on parties, it is fundamentally undemocratic that there is such great disparity between vote share and seat share, and as a result something must be done.
There are a number of alternatives, as detailed by the Electoral Reform Society: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems, many of which would help increase the proportionality of elections in the UK, and bring our democracy in line with the majority of Europe and even the devolved Parliaments, as the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly use the Additional Member System whilst the Northern Ireland Assembly uses the Single Transferable Vote system. Both of those systems have their own advantages and disadvantages, and whilst they can be much better explained by the ERS, a brief overview is required here. The Additional Member System retains the First Past The Post system for around half of elected members, in order to keep the link between MPs and their constituencies, whilst also ensuring independents can be elected that might not in a party list election. AMS then allows the electorate to use a second vote to vote for a party rather than a candidate, and these votes are taken into account in regions and create more MPs that serve to balance out the disproportional nature of FPTP. Single Transferable Vote on the other hand creates multi-member constituencies and allows the electorate to list candidates by preference, and to be elected candidates need to meet a minimum threshold. If there are seats left over as no more candidates meet the threshold, elected members and the lowest candidate are eliminated and their additional votes redistributed, which is a repeating process until all seats are filled. Both of these methods ensure that all voters have a say in who is elected rather than a simple plurality, and thus ensures elections are more proportional and democratic. Both methods also allow links between MPs and constituencies to be retained, whilst a directly proportional list system whilst making seats directly proportional to vote share would also remove this vital link that many cite as a clear benefit of First Past The Post.
Despite the case for electoral reform being immense, particularly as the last election has been described as the least proportional in UK history, there is a great reluctance to carry it out in the Conservative and Labour Parties as they have historically benefited from FPTP. Whilst smaller and more progressive parties such as the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats and even the Scottish National Party support electoral reform to implement proportional representation, they lack the seats to carry it out, and are thus calling on Labour to join a so-called "Progressive Alliance" at the next election on a shared platform of electoral reform. There are hopes that Labour would be open to this as they lost seats in 2015 despite gaining votes and there are strong fears the only way to ever gain power again is by working with smaller progressive parties. However I feel that this will only be possible if Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, as the right of the Parliamentary Labour has historically been very hostile to the idea of co-operation with the smaller parties, and can hardly be described as progressive when they abstain on key austerity measures. Assuming that Corbyn does remain leader, electoral pacts could be key to ensure that there is a progressive majority in Parliament after the next election, with a clear mandate to implement electoral reform and ensure that this country becomes just that bit more democratic.
Saturday 30 July 2016
Friday 29 July 2016
Future of the UK
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is dead. That's a bold statement to make, but it's a statement being made by more and more people, regardless of their views on the idea. Scotland has been the obvious indicator of the truth of this idea in recent times, with the independence referendum in 2014 giving a result of 45% in favour of independence. Whilst Scotland did vote to remain a part of the UK, the fact that 45% wished to leave clearly highlights that things cannot stay the way they are. Since that referendum levels of support for independence have not fallen, and indeed the SNP (the main independence supporting party in Scotland) won 56 out of 59 Westminster seats, whilst independence supporting parties won a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. It seems only a matter of time before Scotland breaks free from this union, and the consequences of that could destroy the union forever.
The EU referendum produced a narrow victory for the Leave Campaign, with 52% voting to leave. However in Scotland voters chose to remain by a stunning 62% to a 38% vote for leaving. Every voting in area in Scotland voted to remain, in stark contrast to the vast majority of England and Wales, which saw votes to leave at 53.4% and 52.5% respectively. One of the key themes in the Better Together campaign during the independence referendum was that a vote to remain in the UK was the only way to guarantee continued membership of the EU, and yet now despite Scotland voting to remain in the EU it seems that the UK is going to drag them out. This startling reality means that Scotland is almost certain to favour independence within the next 5 years, whether that is before or after the UK officially leaves the EU is up for discussion, although I feel that the SNP and government of Scotland is likely to wait until after Article 50 is triggered and before the UK leaves the EU within two years of that, so that Scotland can remain in the EU whilst the rest of the UK leaves. I firmly support the idea of an independent Scotland, as does the sister party of my own, the Scottish Greens, who campaigned for independence two years ago and who continue to believe it is the best route forward for Scotland. As a communist many would expect me to support a federal but United Kingdom, as the working class should be united and fighting the establishment together to bring about a socialist republic rather than supporting nationalism that can only further divides. Indeed most communists either supported Scotland remaining in the UK or simply abstained from making a decision, however I fundamentally disagree with this idea. Whilst ethno-nationalism is abhorrent and we must fight it, I believe that civic nationalism can have a place in the short term. Rather than dividing people on the basis of race, it aims to secure and devolve powers to a particular region or nation, on the basis that people in an area should have a say on what happens in that area, rather than having politicians from Westminster that are completely detached from Scotland (in this instance being able to make vital decisions). I see civic nationalism and independence for Scotland as a vital step toward giving more power to ordinary people rather than distant and out of touch politicians, and it is for that reason I also support independence for Wales and England.
Another nation in the UK that voted to remain and now has an uncertain future is Northern Ireland, which voted to remain 55.8%, much to the delight of Sinn Féin and other Irish republicans and nationalists. Sinn Féin, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have now all called for an eventual Irish Unity Poll, as the north relies heavily on the open border with the Republic, which is in the EU, and leaving the EU could greatly threaten the economic and social stability of the north. In the past few years it has been increasingly clear that people are moving away from the old Unionist/Nationalist divide, as there are increased vote shares for parties like the Greens, People Before Profit, and Alliance that are not easily placed into one of the two camps. This means that opposition to either being a part of Ireland or a part of the UK is softening, and many younger voters are therefore likely to support whichever option brings greatest economic benefit. It is therefore in my view almost inevitable that sooner or later the island of Ireland will constitute one nation. To prevent resentment from unionists however it is vital that conciliatory measures are taken, and I therefore believe that the province of Ulster should be given its own devolved Parliament, along with the other provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster. This will help ensure that more power is given to people directly, and help prevent tensions between the Protestant majority north and the Catholic majority south, which was the reason for the divide in the first place.
Wales on the other hand has a much less certain future, as there is little sign of great support for independence, and it is more likely that England and Wales will simply remain united along with Cornwall in the near future. Whilst I do support independence for Wales, a national assembly for Cornwall and regional parliaments in England to increase devolution and further power to people directly, I think that simple reality contradicts these hopes in the immediate future. Despite this I do think that with hard work and determination great things can be achieved, and even with Wales remaining in a political union with England, the United Kingdom as we know it is over. Yet another era in the history of these isles is coming to an end, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
The EU referendum produced a narrow victory for the Leave Campaign, with 52% voting to leave. However in Scotland voters chose to remain by a stunning 62% to a 38% vote for leaving. Every voting in area in Scotland voted to remain, in stark contrast to the vast majority of England and Wales, which saw votes to leave at 53.4% and 52.5% respectively. One of the key themes in the Better Together campaign during the independence referendum was that a vote to remain in the UK was the only way to guarantee continued membership of the EU, and yet now despite Scotland voting to remain in the EU it seems that the UK is going to drag them out. This startling reality means that Scotland is almost certain to favour independence within the next 5 years, whether that is before or after the UK officially leaves the EU is up for discussion, although I feel that the SNP and government of Scotland is likely to wait until after Article 50 is triggered and before the UK leaves the EU within two years of that, so that Scotland can remain in the EU whilst the rest of the UK leaves. I firmly support the idea of an independent Scotland, as does the sister party of my own, the Scottish Greens, who campaigned for independence two years ago and who continue to believe it is the best route forward for Scotland. As a communist many would expect me to support a federal but United Kingdom, as the working class should be united and fighting the establishment together to bring about a socialist republic rather than supporting nationalism that can only further divides. Indeed most communists either supported Scotland remaining in the UK or simply abstained from making a decision, however I fundamentally disagree with this idea. Whilst ethno-nationalism is abhorrent and we must fight it, I believe that civic nationalism can have a place in the short term. Rather than dividing people on the basis of race, it aims to secure and devolve powers to a particular region or nation, on the basis that people in an area should have a say on what happens in that area, rather than having politicians from Westminster that are completely detached from Scotland (in this instance being able to make vital decisions). I see civic nationalism and independence for Scotland as a vital step toward giving more power to ordinary people rather than distant and out of touch politicians, and it is for that reason I also support independence for Wales and England.
Another nation in the UK that voted to remain and now has an uncertain future is Northern Ireland, which voted to remain 55.8%, much to the delight of Sinn Féin and other Irish republicans and nationalists. Sinn Féin, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have now all called for an eventual Irish Unity Poll, as the north relies heavily on the open border with the Republic, which is in the EU, and leaving the EU could greatly threaten the economic and social stability of the north. In the past few years it has been increasingly clear that people are moving away from the old Unionist/Nationalist divide, as there are increased vote shares for parties like the Greens, People Before Profit, and Alliance that are not easily placed into one of the two camps. This means that opposition to either being a part of Ireland or a part of the UK is softening, and many younger voters are therefore likely to support whichever option brings greatest economic benefit. It is therefore in my view almost inevitable that sooner or later the island of Ireland will constitute one nation. To prevent resentment from unionists however it is vital that conciliatory measures are taken, and I therefore believe that the province of Ulster should be given its own devolved Parliament, along with the other provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster. This will help ensure that more power is given to people directly, and help prevent tensions between the Protestant majority north and the Catholic majority south, which was the reason for the divide in the first place.
Wales on the other hand has a much less certain future, as there is little sign of great support for independence, and it is more likely that England and Wales will simply remain united along with Cornwall in the near future. Whilst I do support independence for Wales, a national assembly for Cornwall and regional parliaments in England to increase devolution and further power to people directly, I think that simple reality contradicts these hopes in the immediate future. Despite this I do think that with hard work and determination great things can be achieved, and even with Wales remaining in a political union with England, the United Kingdom as we know it is over. Yet another era in the history of these isles is coming to an end, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Thursday 28 July 2016
Politics Across the Pond
Today Hillary Clinton formally accepts the Democratic Nomination for President, which makes me think, how did American politics even get here? Obama was supposed to be a victory for progress in the United States; he was a liberal, a voice of hope and change, and America's first black President. And yet 8 years after the USA first elected him, the Republican Candidate is the most divisive mainstream candidate in recent American history, openly calling for Muslims to be banned from the country and accusing Mexican migrants into the USA of being drug dealers and rapists. With such a terrible candidate at the helm of the Republican Party you'd expect the Democrats to be polling far ahead of them, and yet polls show them level and in a couple of instances Trump even leads against Clinton. That's because Clinton represents the very political establishment and elite that so many in America are fed up with, and she cannot gain the trust of the American people.
In all probability the USA will elect either Clinton or Trump as President, and the American people will face further neoliberal economic policies from Clinton's side, with free trade deals, such as TPP, stripping away fundamental rights, and giving corporations almost limitless power over workers and states, or increased polarisation, violence, and openly discriminatory policies from Trump's side. Trump is very much the candidate or rebellion, as he claims to oppose the political establishment and promises to change the way the country is run, which appeals to huge swathes of a population that has been disenfranchised and become disheartened with politics as usual, whilst Clinton has become the "Not Trump" candidate, professing moderate liberal policies and hoping that enough people will decide that Trump just isn't worth the risk to ensure her path to the White House is secured. It's essentially a choice between the lesser of two evils, where the two evils are monstrosities.
There was another potential contender in the Presidential Race until recently however, and Bernie Sanders would have represented a break with the neoliberal consensus. Had the Democratic National Congress not conspired against him there is a very real possibility it would be a social democrat standing against Donald Trump and true progressive change could have been achieved. However Sanders didn't manage to win the Democratic primaries, and it is essentially a choice between the same old politics that exploits ordinary people, or a new radical politics that has the potential to tear the country apart. The American two-party system has resulted in a disastrous choice, and no matter the result the country will not come out a better place.
Unless the American people did something radical. There are two other candidates in the running for President; Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. Gary Johnson should be commended for his social views, as he openly supports civil liberties, increasing the rights of minorities, and standing up for the oppressed. But his economic views are far from satisfactory, with openly stated support for economic liberalisation, increased privatisation and TPP, which will help strip away the rights of the people to stand up to corporate entities. Which leaves Jill Stein. Jill Stein doesn't support the killing of innocent civilians in far away countries. Jill Stein doesn't support reducing civil liberties and taking away the rights of workers and the state. Jill Stein doesn't support protecting big business at any cost. Instead, she supports the rights of the little guy, whether that's workers, minorities, or anyone else being suppressed by the establishment. She also supports greater environmental protections, and facing the reality of climate change that so many others seem to deny. Unlike Clinton and Trump she recognises that fracking is a very harmful process, and recognises that a lot more needs to be done to protect the environment. The only real progressive candidate is Jill Stein, and unlike the others who have some negatives and positives, she really does represent progress on all issues; from the economy to the environment to social issues.
The United States of America faces disaster, unless her citizens decide that now really is the time to do things differently. Now is the time to challenge the economic consensus, and to challenge the politics of hate. The millions of people who voted for Bernie Sanders didn't vote for him because he was the lesser of two evils, they voted for him because he appealed to the many who had been ignored for so long. That movement needn't die, and Jill Stein is the best chance the USA has for progress. Jill Stein won't become President, but every vote counts, and if enough people vote for change progress really can be made. Progress can be built on, and regardless of who wins, change is coming in America.
In all probability the USA will elect either Clinton or Trump as President, and the American people will face further neoliberal economic policies from Clinton's side, with free trade deals, such as TPP, stripping away fundamental rights, and giving corporations almost limitless power over workers and states, or increased polarisation, violence, and openly discriminatory policies from Trump's side. Trump is very much the candidate or rebellion, as he claims to oppose the political establishment and promises to change the way the country is run, which appeals to huge swathes of a population that has been disenfranchised and become disheartened with politics as usual, whilst Clinton has become the "Not Trump" candidate, professing moderate liberal policies and hoping that enough people will decide that Trump just isn't worth the risk to ensure her path to the White House is secured. It's essentially a choice between the lesser of two evils, where the two evils are monstrosities.
There was another potential contender in the Presidential Race until recently however, and Bernie Sanders would have represented a break with the neoliberal consensus. Had the Democratic National Congress not conspired against him there is a very real possibility it would be a social democrat standing against Donald Trump and true progressive change could have been achieved. However Sanders didn't manage to win the Democratic primaries, and it is essentially a choice between the same old politics that exploits ordinary people, or a new radical politics that has the potential to tear the country apart. The American two-party system has resulted in a disastrous choice, and no matter the result the country will not come out a better place.
Unless the American people did something radical. There are two other candidates in the running for President; Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party. Gary Johnson should be commended for his social views, as he openly supports civil liberties, increasing the rights of minorities, and standing up for the oppressed. But his economic views are far from satisfactory, with openly stated support for economic liberalisation, increased privatisation and TPP, which will help strip away the rights of the people to stand up to corporate entities. Which leaves Jill Stein. Jill Stein doesn't support the killing of innocent civilians in far away countries. Jill Stein doesn't support reducing civil liberties and taking away the rights of workers and the state. Jill Stein doesn't support protecting big business at any cost. Instead, she supports the rights of the little guy, whether that's workers, minorities, or anyone else being suppressed by the establishment. She also supports greater environmental protections, and facing the reality of climate change that so many others seem to deny. Unlike Clinton and Trump she recognises that fracking is a very harmful process, and recognises that a lot more needs to be done to protect the environment. The only real progressive candidate is Jill Stein, and unlike the others who have some negatives and positives, she really does represent progress on all issues; from the economy to the environment to social issues.
The United States of America faces disaster, unless her citizens decide that now really is the time to do things differently. Now is the time to challenge the economic consensus, and to challenge the politics of hate. The millions of people who voted for Bernie Sanders didn't vote for him because he was the lesser of two evils, they voted for him because he appealed to the many who had been ignored for so long. That movement needn't die, and Jill Stein is the best chance the USA has for progress. Jill Stein won't become President, but every vote counts, and if enough people vote for change progress really can be made. Progress can be built on, and regardless of who wins, change is coming in America.
Wednesday 27 July 2016
Why the Greens?
I openly describe myself as a socialist, so I'm often assumed to be a supporter of the Labour Party, whilst others assume that because of my young age I'm not in a political party at all. Most also presume that my views will become much less radical as I grow older, and perhaps they're right, although I have good reason to doubt it, Despite these assumptions, I am in the Green Party of England and Wales, and have every intention of staying there regardless who leads the Labour Party.
The Green Party is in my view the most radical of the major parties in the UK, whether that's proposing ideas like a national basic income or calling for a complete ban on the harmful practise of fracking. Climate change has been described as the single most dangerous threat to the global economy in terms of impact by the World Economic Forum. The Conservatives blatantly disregard the environment in their policies, with David Cameron's pledge to lead the greenest government ever thrown out of the window when he presided over cuts in funding for renewables and other environmental measures. Labour on the other hand has not been all that much better, and whilst their rhetoric of being a party that cares about both the economy and the environment, their policies have been half-hearted at best, with doing little more than calling for greater regulation on fracking whilst also supporting the creation of HS2 which will damage local communities and the environment. It seems clear therefore that there is only one party taking the environment seriously, and that is the Green Party.
However it would be foolish of me to join the Greens on economic policies alone. Although I care passionately about the environment, it is far from the only issue I care about, and the living standards of ordinary people is just as if not more important. Fortunately the Greens once again provide fantastic ideas on how we can combat social and economic injustice, and in some cases are actually further ahead than even the left of Labour. Policies such as a national basic income must be campaigned for now more than ever, as increasing automisation means that workers are losing out to the machine, and as a result are forced into low-pay jobs, self-employment, zero-hours contracts, or simply into unemployment. A report released today shows that UK wages in real terms have fallen by 10.4% since 2007, which is a fall matched only by Greece in Europe, and whilst there are a number of factors including the crushing austerity imposed by right wing governments, it proves that we cannot rely on wages to forever increase, and that we must find an alternative source of income for our citizens. The national basic income provides that, as it is an untaxed monthly income that will go to every citizen regardless of economic status, whilst any additional income will then be taxed progressively. This means everyone can have enough to survive, whilst helping to reduce levels of inequality, and helping to eradicate both absolute and relative poverty in the UK. It is encouraging to see that Labour is considering the policy themselves, and that Finland and the Netherlands are piloting the policy next year. However if we want to eradicate poverty sooner than later the UK should take an active role in becoming one of the first countries to implement the policy, not just because it will help reduce poverty, but also because it removes the need for endless bureaucracy that arises from the complicated welfare system we have at the moment in regard to tax credits and various benefits such as housing benefit and Job Seekers' Allowance. This policy should therefore be at the forefront of the Green economic platform, whilst the many other ideas the Greens have should be campaigned on as well. I am in the Green Party because I believe our economic policies are unmatched by other parties, and by bringing finance and economics back under democratic control we can achieve something truly radical and successful.
The Green Party is the only party that campaigns for social and economic justice, in conjunction with a sound environmental platform that recognises the issues facing not just the UK but the globe, and aims to deal with these issues. It is the Green Party that is the best option for a sustainable and fair society, economy, and environment. We have the largest youth party in the UK as of April 2015 and more members than both the Lib Dems and UKIP, if we utilised these activists we could truly make a great difference in UK politics. Implementing proportional representation is the key to this, but the future lies with the Green Party, and not with the two old giants that bicker amongst themselves and care for little more than power.
The Green Party is in my view the most radical of the major parties in the UK, whether that's proposing ideas like a national basic income or calling for a complete ban on the harmful practise of fracking. Climate change has been described as the single most dangerous threat to the global economy in terms of impact by the World Economic Forum. The Conservatives blatantly disregard the environment in their policies, with David Cameron's pledge to lead the greenest government ever thrown out of the window when he presided over cuts in funding for renewables and other environmental measures. Labour on the other hand has not been all that much better, and whilst their rhetoric of being a party that cares about both the economy and the environment, their policies have been half-hearted at best, with doing little more than calling for greater regulation on fracking whilst also supporting the creation of HS2 which will damage local communities and the environment. It seems clear therefore that there is only one party taking the environment seriously, and that is the Green Party.
However it would be foolish of me to join the Greens on economic policies alone. Although I care passionately about the environment, it is far from the only issue I care about, and the living standards of ordinary people is just as if not more important. Fortunately the Greens once again provide fantastic ideas on how we can combat social and economic injustice, and in some cases are actually further ahead than even the left of Labour. Policies such as a national basic income must be campaigned for now more than ever, as increasing automisation means that workers are losing out to the machine, and as a result are forced into low-pay jobs, self-employment, zero-hours contracts, or simply into unemployment. A report released today shows that UK wages in real terms have fallen by 10.4% since 2007, which is a fall matched only by Greece in Europe, and whilst there are a number of factors including the crushing austerity imposed by right wing governments, it proves that we cannot rely on wages to forever increase, and that we must find an alternative source of income for our citizens. The national basic income provides that, as it is an untaxed monthly income that will go to every citizen regardless of economic status, whilst any additional income will then be taxed progressively. This means everyone can have enough to survive, whilst helping to reduce levels of inequality, and helping to eradicate both absolute and relative poverty in the UK. It is encouraging to see that Labour is considering the policy themselves, and that Finland and the Netherlands are piloting the policy next year. However if we want to eradicate poverty sooner than later the UK should take an active role in becoming one of the first countries to implement the policy, not just because it will help reduce poverty, but also because it removes the need for endless bureaucracy that arises from the complicated welfare system we have at the moment in regard to tax credits and various benefits such as housing benefit and Job Seekers' Allowance. This policy should therefore be at the forefront of the Green economic platform, whilst the many other ideas the Greens have should be campaigned on as well. I am in the Green Party because I believe our economic policies are unmatched by other parties, and by bringing finance and economics back under democratic control we can achieve something truly radical and successful.
The Green Party is the only party that campaigns for social and economic justice, in conjunction with a sound environmental platform that recognises the issues facing not just the UK but the globe, and aims to deal with these issues. It is the Green Party that is the best option for a sustainable and fair society, economy, and environment. We have the largest youth party in the UK as of April 2015 and more members than both the Lib Dems and UKIP, if we utilised these activists we could truly make a great difference in UK politics. Implementing proportional representation is the key to this, but the future lies with the Green Party, and not with the two old giants that bicker amongst themselves and care for little more than power.
Tuesday 26 July 2016
Green Party Leadership Election
You probably wouldn't know it from the media coverage at the moment, but the Green Party is having a leadership election at the moment, Whilst the Tories are united around their new leader as they continue to cut our public services to the bone and push more people into poverty and the Labour party is continuing its downward spiral into chaos as a Parliamentary Labour Party clearly out of touch with its membership continues to try and overthrow Jeremy Corbyn, the Greens are getting on with the small matter of electing a new leadership team and executive. Our well known former leader Natalie Bennett isn't standing again, meaning that the race should be wide open. Whilst Natalie has been in my view a fantastic leader; she has truly brought us onto the national stage and made us a force that is growing stronger all the time, I believe that she has made the right decision in not standing again. She can only be congratulated for her achievements, but it is time for someone to communicate the ideas she helped bring onto the national stage in an effective manner, and to make us not just visible but also credible.
The Green Party needs an effective speaker, someone who is not afraid of standing up for our policies, and is able to effectively defend them despite potential ridicule from the media and mainstream parties. And we need someone who is able to recognise that the environment is something we need to fight for, but so is social and economic justice. We need a leader that has practical ideas for how to implement our policies. It is for those reasons that I am supporting David Malone. Whilst I think regardless of who wins this leadership election the Greens will emerge stronger than ever before, David Malone is the one who truly understands the enormity of the task ahead. Unlike some of the more idealistic ones among us, he recognises that until we bring finance and economics back under democratic control we simply cannot implement Green policies successfully. He has also shown himself to be a competent speaker and debater, with his appearances at the Green Party hustings all highlighting his communication skills. He has also shown that he actually understands what he is talking about, with a clear ability to debate effectively, and has written a book "the Debt Generation" and helped produce a number of documentaries on a variety of issues, not just to do with politics. His acceptance of the EU referendum result and belief that we should not rerun the referendum simply because many Greens were unhappy with the result is also encouraging. Regardless of people's views on the result, and I am the first to accept that there were lies on all sides of the campaign, we must not simply decide the people were wrong and should be forced to keep voting until they make the right decision. Democracy must be held above all else.
Many outside and inside the party feel that the candidacy of Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley is almost guaranteed to win, but I have some reservations about this. Caroline Lucas is a former leader of the party, and she decided to step down to promote fresh blood into the party. She has now seemingly changed her mind and decided to stand as part of a job-share. Unfortunately it seems clear to me that it will be Lucas and not Bartley that is the face of this potential leadership, and goes directly against the idea that we should be diversifying the party and bringing new voices into prominent positions. We risk becoming a party with just one face, and whilst I have immense respect for Caroline Lucas as an MP, I feel that her focus should be on her fantastic parliamentary work whilst David Malone can provide a solid leadership for the party. As for Bartley, I feel that he could be a potential leader if he stood on a ticket by himself, but even then Malone comes across as a better candidate.
As for deputy leadership candidates, I think that all are more than capable of providing an effective leadership team regardless of the leader/co-leaders. However I have voted for Amelia Womack as my first preference due to her solidly left-wing and strong environmental views, her ability to engage people, trade unions and organisations, and her competency during the last two years as a deputy leader. With David Malone as leader, Amelia Womack and another as deputies, I believe the Green Party has huge potential to put together a successful leadership team and emerge stronger than ever as a united party in these tumultuous times. Regardless of the result, I wish the best of luck to all candidates and am convinced the Greens will continue to build from the grassroots up and expand to become a serious player in UK politics.
The Green Party needs an effective speaker, someone who is not afraid of standing up for our policies, and is able to effectively defend them despite potential ridicule from the media and mainstream parties. And we need someone who is able to recognise that the environment is something we need to fight for, but so is social and economic justice. We need a leader that has practical ideas for how to implement our policies. It is for those reasons that I am supporting David Malone. Whilst I think regardless of who wins this leadership election the Greens will emerge stronger than ever before, David Malone is the one who truly understands the enormity of the task ahead. Unlike some of the more idealistic ones among us, he recognises that until we bring finance and economics back under democratic control we simply cannot implement Green policies successfully. He has also shown himself to be a competent speaker and debater, with his appearances at the Green Party hustings all highlighting his communication skills. He has also shown that he actually understands what he is talking about, with a clear ability to debate effectively, and has written a book "the Debt Generation" and helped produce a number of documentaries on a variety of issues, not just to do with politics. His acceptance of the EU referendum result and belief that we should not rerun the referendum simply because many Greens were unhappy with the result is also encouraging. Regardless of people's views on the result, and I am the first to accept that there were lies on all sides of the campaign, we must not simply decide the people were wrong and should be forced to keep voting until they make the right decision. Democracy must be held above all else.
Many outside and inside the party feel that the candidacy of Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley is almost guaranteed to win, but I have some reservations about this. Caroline Lucas is a former leader of the party, and she decided to step down to promote fresh blood into the party. She has now seemingly changed her mind and decided to stand as part of a job-share. Unfortunately it seems clear to me that it will be Lucas and not Bartley that is the face of this potential leadership, and goes directly against the idea that we should be diversifying the party and bringing new voices into prominent positions. We risk becoming a party with just one face, and whilst I have immense respect for Caroline Lucas as an MP, I feel that her focus should be on her fantastic parliamentary work whilst David Malone can provide a solid leadership for the party. As for Bartley, I feel that he could be a potential leader if he stood on a ticket by himself, but even then Malone comes across as a better candidate.
As for deputy leadership candidates, I think that all are more than capable of providing an effective leadership team regardless of the leader/co-leaders. However I have voted for Amelia Womack as my first preference due to her solidly left-wing and strong environmental views, her ability to engage people, trade unions and organisations, and her competency during the last two years as a deputy leader. With David Malone as leader, Amelia Womack and another as deputies, I believe the Green Party has huge potential to put together a successful leadership team and emerge stronger than ever as a united party in these tumultuous times. Regardless of the result, I wish the best of luck to all candidates and am convinced the Greens will continue to build from the grassroots up and expand to become a serious player in UK politics.
Introduction
Who am I?
I'm a 16 year old in the south-east of England, with some rather unconventional views on politics. I'm a member of the Green Party of England and Wales, and have been since January 2015, joining as yet another individual unhappy with the political situation at the time and seeing the so-called Green Surge as a perfect opportunity to help change that. I was born in the Republic of Ireland and lived the first five years of my life in Germany, and with family across Europe I have a strong affinity with more than just one nation. Despite this, my family is now very much in the lower classes of UK society, and it is because of this financial situation and experiencing firsthand the injustices of modern life that I developed strong political views.
What are my politics?
Despite being in the Green Party I am very much a communist - I believe that we should be working towards a stateless society that focuses on common ownership of resources and that benefits all. I've been a communist since the age of 11, having read the Communist Manifesto and studying various political figures and political ideologies in my free time. At first a Marxist-Leninist, I am now a very libertarian communist with Luxemburgist and Anarchist tendencies. However I do not believe we should rely on revolutionary tactics to install some sort of communist utopia, it simply won't work, especially not in a society where individualism has a stranglehold. In the modern era I firmly believe that parliamentary democracy in countries like the UK are the route to establish socialism and ensure that everyone can be helped. So why am I not in a communist party? I'll explain fully in an article at some point, however I do not believe a communist party will achieve electoral success, and there are none that fit my views sufficiently regardless. To be clear I do not see the Greens as a tool to further my personal hopes and political fantasies. The Greens aren't communist, they aren't even officially socialist. But I care passionately about the environment, about economic and social justice, and about making a difference. In the UK the Green Party truly encapsulates these values, and it is for that reason I am a committed member and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I'm a 16 year old in the south-east of England, with some rather unconventional views on politics. I'm a member of the Green Party of England and Wales, and have been since January 2015, joining as yet another individual unhappy with the political situation at the time and seeing the so-called Green Surge as a perfect opportunity to help change that. I was born in the Republic of Ireland and lived the first five years of my life in Germany, and with family across Europe I have a strong affinity with more than just one nation. Despite this, my family is now very much in the lower classes of UK society, and it is because of this financial situation and experiencing firsthand the injustices of modern life that I developed strong political views.
What are my politics?
Despite being in the Green Party I am very much a communist - I believe that we should be working towards a stateless society that focuses on common ownership of resources and that benefits all. I've been a communist since the age of 11, having read the Communist Manifesto and studying various political figures and political ideologies in my free time. At first a Marxist-Leninist, I am now a very libertarian communist with Luxemburgist and Anarchist tendencies. However I do not believe we should rely on revolutionary tactics to install some sort of communist utopia, it simply won't work, especially not in a society where individualism has a stranglehold. In the modern era I firmly believe that parliamentary democracy in countries like the UK are the route to establish socialism and ensure that everyone can be helped. So why am I not in a communist party? I'll explain fully in an article at some point, however I do not believe a communist party will achieve electoral success, and there are none that fit my views sufficiently regardless. To be clear I do not see the Greens as a tool to further my personal hopes and political fantasies. The Greens aren't communist, they aren't even officially socialist. But I care passionately about the environment, about economic and social justice, and about making a difference. In the UK the Green Party truly encapsulates these values, and it is for that reason I am a committed member and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)