What Caroline Lucas can do about the Green vote collapse




What Caroline Lucas can do about the Green vote collapse


An interesting critique of the Presidential Style of the Lucas Bartley Regime at the Green Party.
Did the Progressive Alliance cause the 55% slump in 2017 Green votes as compared with 2015? No, but Caroline Lucas has been leading us in the wrong direction.
This is a last ditch appeal to the Green Party leadership. It is not primarily a criticism, but I do believe that Caroline has been following a path which was bound to lead to just this disaster.
Please read my last three blogs, 8th, 10th and 18th June, but here is a recap of how we got where we are:
In 1973 (what became) the Green Party was formed in response to the MIT warnings in ‘Limits to Growth’ that we were reaching  the limits of the ecosphere to cope with human  economic activity.
I joined, pointing out to the founder members’ alarm, that they had just formed a wildly socialist party, because the ‘steady state’ economy…
View original post 1,092 more words
1234

  1. Hello, Clive. The UBI did survive in the 2017 Manifesto, EC661 did not survive.
    UBI works best in Countries with a Sovereign Currency and therefore potential of Using the mythical “Magic Money Tree” creating money as a distributive and not re-distributive policy.
    The Anti-Democratic and “Deplorables2 Like stance of Caroline on Brexit will explain a lot of the problem in the Green Vote collapse. The other is the Social Democracy resurgent Labour Party.
    Mike Shone did an excellent analysis of how ineffectual the “Progressive Alliance” was, due to the resurrected Labour vote.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/an-interesting-discussion-on-analysis.html
    ” Greens “standing down”: the effect on the Tory total in Parliament
    Labour made 28 gains and Lib. Dems 5 from Tories on election day in England and Wales (they also had a few losses).
    In these 33 gains from Tories , Greens fielded candidates in twenty-two constituencies. We stood aside in eleven. It appears that in only one seat : Oxford and Abingdon was the absence of a Green candidate extremely likely to have been decisive for a Tory loss. (There in 2015 the Green vote total was 2,497 and the Lib Dem majority in 2017 was 816. So it seems pretty clear that the presence of a Green in 2017 would have led to Tory retention ).
    Looking at Labour’s thirty-three most vulnerable seats with majorities of less than 3,000, Greens stood in 17 of them. Only in Newcastle under Lyme and Bishop Auckland did the absence of a Green candidate prevent a Tory taking a Labour seat. And the absence of Green in Tim Farron’s seat saved him from being defeated by a Tory.
    So overall it looks as if standing aside only contributed decisively to one Tory loss , but also to two Labour retentions and one Lib Dem. retention.
    In general, Greens standing aside had the effect of making the majorities against Tories bigger than would have otherwise been the case, but had limited impact on the Tory total.”
    Subsidiarity is a Keystone of the EU´s Constitution and of the Green Party Ethos, Both Leadership of the Eu and The Green Party have forgotten what Subsidiarity is and That Devolution of implementation of Policy and Initiation of Policy at a more centralised level should flow from the Smallest Units of Organisation.This goes for All policy and Distributed Networks or any system must be governed by sensitive feedback communication. The Current Leadership in pursuing a Pound Shop Liberal Democratic stance, has I think devalued the Green Parties strengths which lie in Radical solutions to the problems which are clearly not being solved in the top down elitist model pursued under Neo-Liberalism.
    David Malone will be challenging for the Leadership of the Green Party in 2018, the present Regime is, in my opinion, a failing experiment in a Presidential style that frankly has annoyed rather a lot of people.
Comment still not on Clives Blog so here it is with my further comment.
  1. Hi Clive
    given your “a recession can be fun” theme, I thought you might appeciate this quote from Vaclav Smil.
    Also, a question. You say:
    the (effective) ‘Target to Win’ strategy shifted the focus from global to local, so the ‘de-growth’ nettle was left ungrasped. Crucially, it still is.
    But, do you not think the installation of green councillors could be valuable from the resilience point of view? The green localisation agenda goes back a long way does it not?
    • Even now that so many Green councillors have a formidable record, wild horses won’t persuade them tostart the de-growth debate, but to get them in in the first place it would have frightened too many horses.
      Thanks for the link. I don’t suppose you have read ‘The political Brain’ by Drew Westen. His main theme is that emotion is always dominant, never rational arguments. But another key point is that humans are hard wired against loss, however slight. What Vaclav Smil says is eminently rational, but hasn’t ahope inHell of getting anywhere – unless we can a) ttellpeople that something worse might happen, and b) guarantee their security when it does (see my blog again for how that might happen).
  2. Hello, Clive. The UBI did survive in the 2017 Manifesto, EC661 did not survive.
    UBI works best in Countries with a Sovereign Currency and therefore potential of Using the mythical “Magic Money Tree” creating money as a distributive and not re-distributive policy.
    The Anti-Democratic and “Deplorables2 Like stance of Caroline on Brexit will explain a lot of the problem in the Green Vote collapse. The other is the Social Democracy resurgent Labour Party.
    Mike Shone did an excellent analysis of how ineffectual the “Progressive Alliance” was, due to the resurrected Labour vote.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/an-interesting-discussion-on-analysis.html
    ” Greens “standing down”: the effect on the Tory total in Parliament
    Labour made 28 gains and Lib. Dems 5 from Tories on election day in England and Wales (they also had a few losses).
    In these 33 gains from Tories , Greens fielded candidates in twenty-two constituencies. We stood aside in eleven. It appears that in only one seat : Oxford and Abingdon was the absence of a Green candidate extremely likely to have been decisive for a Tory loss. (There in 2015 the Green vote total was 2,497 and the Lib Dem majority in 2017 was 816. So it seems pretty clear that the presence of a Green in 2017 would have led to Tory retention ).
    Looking at Labour’s thirty-three most vulnerable seats with majorities of less than 3,000, Greens stood in 17 of them. Only in Newcastle under Lyme and Bishop Auckland did the absence of a Green candidate prevent a Tory taking a Labour seat. And the absence of Green in Tim Farron’s seat saved him from being defeated by a Tory.
    So overall it looks as if standing aside only contributed decisively to one Tory loss , but also to two Labour retentions and one Lib Dem. retention.
    In general, Greens standing aside had the effect of making the majorities against Tories bigger than would have otherwise been the case, but had limited impact on the Tory total.”
    Subsidiarity is a Keystone of the EU´s Constitution and of the Green Party Ethos, Both Leadership of the Eu and The Green Party have forgotten what Subsidiarity is and That Devolution of implementation of Policy and Initiation of Policy at a more centralised level should flow from the Smallest Units of Organisation.This goes for All policy and Distributed Networks or any system must be governed by sensitive feedback communication. The Current Leadership in pursuing a Pound Shop Liberal Democratic stance, has I think devalued the Green Parties strengths which lie in Radical solutions to the problems which are clearly not being solved in the top down elitist model pursued under Neo-Liberalism.
    David Malone will be challenging for the Leadership of the Green Party in 2018, the present Regime is, in my opinion, a failing experiment in a Presidential style that frankly has annoyed rather a lot of people.
  3. Hi, Clive, I see my comment remains unmoderated. This comment regarding your exchange with Martin on which you are both missing the point. Growth is usually expressed in GDP terms, this is a monetary metric whichever way you look at it.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/finacial-illiteracy-blind-leading-blind.html
    “discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
    merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
    The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable, and like any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed.”
    https://renegadeinc.com/george-osborne/
    – Name one measure we might implement immediately to improve the situation.
    Stop lying to the public about the Magic Money Tree. It’s about the allocation of resources, not money. Money is just a tool to move stuff
    around. Nobody has ever had ‘inflation’ written down as their cause of death. Malnutrition and Exposure: yes, Inflation: no.
    De-Growth is a poisoned well of a definition of sustainable post-Capitalist Economics. Re-defining assumptions and new metrics for the New Paradigm is where the cutting edge of Green Policy should focus.
    Shoe Horning concepts like Distributed local grid renewable energy systems or Permaculture cooperatives into the capitalist mode of production simply does not work as they can not work under the scarcity and debt based allocation systems which define how Capital is constituted and measured.