A Green Democracy?

Elliot Folan

 

One of the greatest problems we have, as Greens, in talking about democracy and democratic reform is the response: well, we have democracy already, don’t we?

The answer, as with many questions, is: “Yes, but”.

A mistake is often made in defining democracy as being purely about elections and, even worse, purely about which MPs get into Parliament every five years. Even if we had the most proportional voting system possible, it would still be useless if the power of the Executive remains strong at the expense of that of the legislature.

As Greens, I think we need to start talking about democracy and our policies on democratic change far more, because it is in this area where we are distinguished from other political parties, both on the Left, centre-left and Right.

Of course, most – if not all! – Greens believe in proportional representation, an elected House of Lords and votes at 16. Enough clearly believe in right of recall, a written constitution and a Bill of Rights to have made it party policy. But these ideas are not unique to Greens. And although this doesn’t lessen their importance – they are vital to improving democracy – there are some principles that Greens have championed that other parties have neglected.

The first principle is the idea of subsidiarity. This is the principle that if something can be decided better at a lower level than at a higher one, it should be. I believe this a very different philosophy to how it sounds. Rather than proposing that everything be planned locally, it provides for national policies to be decided by Parliament; regional policies to be decided regionally; and local policies to be decided locally.

This may sound like a no-brainer, but when you consider that Westminster has more influence on London life than the Mayor does, and that the MP for Chipping Barnet (my constituency) probably has more of an effect on the area than our local Councillors, you may begin to understand what I’m getting at.

The second principle that Greens have promoted somewhat more than others is the idea of strengthening and reforming legislatures at the expense of the Executive. The section of our Policies for a Sustainable Society (PSS) on this is actually quite exciting. The party is committed to overhauling Parliament and councils completely. Local Councils would be encouraged to return to a Committee system, where everyone can contribute, while Parliament would be totally changed.

Instead of the ‘strong leadership’ of an all-powerful Prime Minister and appointed cabinet, an elected First Minister and Ministers would preside over and be accountable to departmental committees of MPs. Power would rest with MPs, not the Prime Minister. The whole House would decide the direction of the country. In other words, elected representatives could exert a real influence on behalf of the people they represent, rather than being nothing more than voting fodder, driven into the Aye or No lobbies by party whips.

There’s all that and more in our policy documents. We only need to talk about it more.

Britain’s Microcosmic Media

By Alfie van den Bos

One of the many ways to judge a modern society is via its media, be it newspapers, television or even the internet. For instance totalitarian societies have always had illiberal approaches to expression and thus the Soviet and Nazi publications, though promoting different ideals, were greatly akin in how they suppressed alternate fashions of opinion and maintained a dull oneness in practically every realm of information. In contrast, the USA, founded by classical liberals, has always enjoyed one of the most heterogeneous appetites for opinion within its media, in line with its love of democracy, with over 500,000 elected posts nationwide. A nation’s media, as a pool of ideas and opinions, can thus be seen to reflect, at least partially, the values and norms of the citizens that interact with it. Therefore, it seems that the ongoing débâcle concerning the alleged misdeeds of certain News International journalists is but a microcosm of a wider malaise that raises crucial questions about the very state of our media as a whole, including all newspaper owners, if not the nation itself. Beyond debates over what constitutes correct media practice and ethical standards, one feels that the ways we perceive information, along with the philosophies that guide such attitudes are rendered increasingly uncertain. When we look into the by now muddied puddle of tabloid or red-top journalism, the pride of our intellects is drowned in the stark realisation that we can only see ourselves.

Of course the individuals in question deserve blame, if proved guilty of wrongdoing, but more widely, I cannot escape the thought that everyone is somehow linked to this concoction of immorality welling up from the corridors of power, that have essentially been found for many years, not in Westminster or Whitehall but in Wapping. Indeed these problems relate to both the irregular methodology of selected journalists at the sacrificed News of the World and the general approach to reportage adopted by the Murdoch Empire, as well as the excess concentrations of political capital and power in the hands of the News International cabal.

 

The reason I feel this is an issue that affects everyone is that which I argued in the opening paragraph, media is reflective of social values regardless of how much we may wish to blind ourselves to these reflections. All UK newspapers are private enterprises, as should be in a democracy, and so all have to sell themselves by appealing to the popular interest of their targeted audience. Ergo one cannot purely show disdain towards the irregular lengths some tabloids will go to acquire stories on public figures and celebrities, as they are merely surviving the fickle waves of the economy by publishing what the average Briton is interested in; tits, gossip, reality shows etc. As the national majority becomes more and more addicted to this type of news its sources dry up, as public figures close off their private lives, yet the continual demand pressurises these publications to seek increasingly questionable solutions. No doubt that some of those mourning Princess Diana’s death would have been the ones devouring pictures of her, had she survived and the press photographers got their images. Consequently the solution to this must lie not in external regulation of the media, which would be detrimental when combined with our outdated libel laws, but a new-found maturity in terms of the information we seek to consume. I am not saying that I know what information people should consume, but that if we our discontented with the current state of affairs, as recent outrage suggests most people are, the pursuit of resolution solely against the press, would be an exercise in mass hypocrisy and vanity.

We can also see links between the descent of tabloid writing and the slow creep of power into the arsenal of ‘Murdocracy’. The national obsession with celebrity and gossip stories masked a political ignorance. Obviously, not everyone finds politics interesting, but in a successful democracy, a minimum of political awareness, far above that, in my opinion, of the average UK citizen, is required. It is no coincidence, for example, that only the more elitist Guardian newspaper has given the News International scandals the attention they deserve or that the issue of super-injunctions as an affront to liberty were not popularised by the affairs of Carter Ruck and Trafigura but the affair of a famous footballer. As a result as a nation we are collectively numbed to politics, especially as the newspaper barons, eager to promote a pro-business electoral ideology try to portray politics as an irrelevant and corrupt art, as well as hindering the progress selected by the Murdochs of this world. Such an opinion is correct in many ways but one must contest the idea that all politics is malign and that the way of the economic weathermen is the only alternative. Haplessly, politicians were forced to see the views of the popular press and the electorate as one and the same and governed to suit the News International agenda. But mere months ago, the Labour leadership, now trying to champion themselves as the noble knights to slay the Murdoch dragon, chose to attack Vince Cable for daring to even consider clipping its wings.

In this way tabloid rulers shifted the political agenda not to the left or the right but to themselves. By this I mean that they supported policy to further their own ends, on a selfish basis rather than for ideological or technocratic reasons, so that it is regardless what political doctrine such policy is usually associated with, because ultimately political classifications should be based on ends not means. It is grossly wrong and childish for us to say that the tabloids somehow deceived people into voting for the ‘wrong’ party. Nonetheless, the scarce amounts of political coverage in the News International tabloids and similar examples, were highly selective. I shall not offend the general electorate by doubting their capacity to decide who to vote for, but rather the bias atmospheres in which many voters made these decisions. People can control what they think, but the media, increasingly, controls what we think about, and he who chooses the battlefield often wins the day.

A vicious circle forms where public disregard for politics feeds the growth of political power for certain media oligarchs, who in turn encourage said apathy. The steely irony here is thus; the readers who care least for politics indirectly affect it to a much greater extent than the keener spectators.

As the next generation we must, all of us, revive a wider interest in politics and a diversity of opinion. And as Young Greens, we enjoy a radical heritage that makes us best placed to do so. In this way our democracy will be enriched as opinions are given a wider basis, and Britain can enter a Spring of superior compromise and consensus.

The masked agenda: public sector (obliteration) reform…

By Jane Watkinson (found at http://janespoliticalramblings.wordpress.com)

You would be forgiven for thinking that there isn’t much else happening in the world of politics aside from the News International/Murdoch empire collapse. However, whilst the focus upon News International – a critical moment for those fighting for alternative, democratic media – is mightily important, there has also been a rather pivotal attack upon the public sector by the government this week, which has been virtually ignored by mainstream reporting. Essentially, it epitomises Cameron’s ‘big society’; the decentralisation of public services – not so they are collectively and democratically controlled for the public interest – so they meet the neoliberal ideal of cost-cutting and ensuring the promotion of a ‘rational’  consumer.

This isn’t new. Technically, this neoliberal driven idea of cost-cutting, masked by the pretence of democracy, has been central to UK social, economic and welfare policies since the 70s/80s – essentially, led by Thatcher, carried on by Major, Blair – and with more venom – the current government. Take mental health, for instance; a programme of de-institutionalisation was implemented around the rise of neoliberalism, driven forward by the Care in the Community programme (for example, around 100 psychiatry hospitals were closed between 1985 and 2000, which meant that there was only around 30 left in the NHS.)

It’s true to say that mental health services are rather poor and certainly one of the most under-resourced areas of social provision. This is not set to improve under the guise of Cameron and co.; already most of the secure units are run by the private sector and often cost three times more than a psychiatry bed in a general hospital. Again, the rational of private sector provision is profit – here, it is to make a profit out of problems that are largely caused by the very thing driving the private focused provision: neoliberalism. Likewise, given the ever decreasing funding opportunities for the third sector (I had first-hand experience of this, when researching funding options for a company I am one of the director’s for - SilenceBreakers), community and voluntary provision is often skewed by the direction of the government (so shaped by neoliberal fascinations) in order to guarantee funding.

In oxymoron fashion, endless choice is branded as control and freedom – when really, the excessive choice and competition creates a dangerous focus upon ‘consumers’ (people) having to self-regulate as rational subjects, meeting the stringent neoliberal ideas of what it means to be ‘normal’. All this choice is really a cover for the endless production of false needs, hopes and aspirations – that really curtail the real needs, hopes and aspirations people have.

I am all for enhancing local control, democratic decision-making and providing people a real say in the provision of their services. But, history stands as a clear testament of the failures of private provision in enabling this; after all, most PFI and private led ‘investments’ fall back on state/public funding.  Therefore, often rather than decreasing central control, the private sector promotes corporate and minority interests (that many in the cabinet represent) that fails and thus relies upon the public to bail them out – no public liberation there; instead, we lose our jobs, health care, welfare, education provision because of the sheer spineless selfish gluttony of those who threaten, mess up and never take responsibility for their actions. Instead, the public are preached to about the virtues of responsibility, whilst we are also threatened by the dangers of those gutless individuals who nearly collapsed the country, then spit their dummy out threatening to flea (good riddance.)

In fact, what is truly concerning is the news that public sector services could be left to fail in order to create a ‘real’ market; a market that would be defined through amorality and total disregard for people’s needs:

Documents obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act reveal research by civil servants warning that markets are susceptible to “failure” and costs could in fact rise unless a true market is created by allowing public services to collapse if they are unsuccessful. (From The Guardian)

Rather, collectives, communal arrangements led by real people without governmental agenda pressure would ensure local democracy. Instead, what we have is the promotion of flowery rhetoric, which attempts to mask the sheer callous nature of this government’s onslaught upon ordinary people’s rights as people and citizens.

Interned Generation

Kristina Diprose*

We are all familiar with the purported benefits of internships. They’re a great opportunity, or so we’re told, to develop new skills, enhance employability, get in a foot in the door and take a step up the ladder. We can try a career on for size, make professional contacts and stand out from the pack next time we go to interview. What better way to weather the current slump in entry level work? It’s what any sensible, entrepreneurial would-be employee would do.

The trouble is, my generation isn’t daft. We know the youth unemployment crisis is deeper than the recession, and likely to outlast it unless we stand up for our rights. All across Europe, young people are waking up to precarity. We are a temporary workforce, without employment protection or benefits, on much lower wages, and often, just plain out of work. Even before the crash, it was not unusual to find youth unemployment at double the national rate.

Prevailing logic says the onus is on us to improve our situation one individual at a time. Too many graduates? Get a Masters. Too few jobs? Do an internship. But when we all stand on tiptoes, nobody gets any higher. Internships are meant to offer us a helping hand into employment. Too often, they used as an excuse for cheap if not free skilled labour. This isn’t training: it’s exploitation.

By refusing to pay interns a wage, employers perpetuate unequal and unfair access to career opportunities. Entry into squeezed sectors like the arts, journalism and NGO work should not be decided by who can pay their dues by working 9 to 5 for six months without pay. If you doubt such arrangements exist, check any graduate jobs listings site. (My favourite spot, incidentally, was an unpaid internship with workers’ rights advocacy group Labour Behind the Label.)

An unscientific straw poll amongst my peers suggests the only way such ‘opportunities’ are affordable are: if your family happens to live near an internship provider (generally, in London or the South East) and doesn’t mind subsidising you; if you work an additional full-time job simultaneously; if you commit benefit fraud; or if you save like mad for absolutely ages and sleep on friends’ sofas. I challenge any employer who thinks that their unpaid internship offers young people a fair deal to consider, honestly, would you do this for work?

Too many of us put up with this situation, because we are told it will work out alright for us in the end. Doing something is better than doing nothing. It’s part of the transition to secure full-time work. I have friends with first-class degrees who’ve moved from unpaid internship to unpaid internship for two years, picking up temporary work along the way. They don’t feel excited about their future anymore. They just want to know, at what point does all this employability enhancement actually lead to a job?

Of course, not all internships are of the same the same ilk, and I am happy to see some employers offer structured, meaningful and fair opportunities to train with them. Yet despite an employment tribunal ruling that expenses-only internships are illegal, the practice is still widespread and Government guidelines are grey at best. We need stronger national minimum wage legislation to protect our rights at work. We also need employers, especially those in receipt of public money, to start practising what they preach about social justice, fair access and opportunity for all.

If you feel strongly about this issue or want to share your experiences of being an intern, here are some recommended links:

A European Youth Forum survey about the situation of interns in Europe: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Europe-Internships

Intern Aware, a campaign promoting fair access to the internship system: http://www.internaware.org/

Internocracy, a youth-led social enterprise working to change the culture of internships in the UK:

http://www.internocracy.org/

 

* Kristina is a PhD student at the University of Leeds, researching voluntary sector youth outreach and transnational activism.

Poets, Artists and Musicians: The Importance of the Arts

This by Harry Wells, on the importance of arts funding.

Funding, by research council:

£102mil AHRC
£470mil BBSRC
£740mil EPSRC
£350mil MRC
£400mil NERC
£211mil ESRC
£491mil STFC

Even before the impact of any proposed cuts, you’d get no prizes for guessing that the Arts & Humanities Research Council is by far the worst-funded of Britain’s seven research councils; of the approximate 15% of their total budget the AHRC is entitled to, it currently takes £102mil a year, an actual figure of 4%. Unsurprisingly, the next lowest-funded is the Economic & Social Research Council, at £211mil, or approximately 8% of the total budget. And yet, Lord Salisbury’s report in 2004 stated that ‘[the arts] lead the way in promoting understanding of the nation’s history and other cultures, religions and societies, helping to sustain both national identity and multicultural tolerance’, and encouraged the idea that it be treated on an equal footing with sciences in terms of funding, and Beethoven himself once said ‘No one should drive a hard bargain with an artist.’ On top of the recent cuts to library funding, the question has to be asked; why, exactly, are the arts such a target? And do they deserve to be prioritised below scientific fields?

One reason could perhaps be the public perception of the arts that Lord Salisbury’s report challenged; the cliché image of the unemployed painter, or the alcoholic author, living in a dingy studio apartment in Paris and rolling slowly toward an opiate-filled grave combined with the concurrent low graduate employment figures for most arts subjects (perhaps excluding foreign languages) when compared with fields such as medicine and engineering have led to an idea of the arts as the predecessors to ‘soft subjects’; not exactly easy or wasteful, but not contributing to society in the same way that developing new astrophysical theories into the creation of the world does. These ideas, however, could be argued to be a contemporary phenomenom, surely; in the same way that during the Renaissance, the work of artists and poets took to the fore as the most effective way of developing culture and understanding, in our modern information age, the same is true for computer science and molecular genetics. The fact of the matter is that societal progress, at the moment, does depend on science, just as it depended on art in the 18th Century. This isn’t, however, a reason to forget the importance of art, as the Conservative-led government would quite happily do; their penchant for slashing and burning whatever isn’t useful at the exact moment is phenomenal. At some point in the future, when science has taken us to the edge of understanding in fields like medicine and the creation of the universe, what will be left to expand upon but the arts?

The other, perhaps more contextual factor in this case, is that the arts are the most effective way to resist a government; and are all the more likely to do so in one that’s cutting them. The world’s most famous writers, musicians and painters have been all-too explicitly anti-establishment; Oscar Wilde, Elvis Presley, Banksy. Across ages and cultures, the arts are a medium to express passive, peaceful resistance, understood as early as the time of Plato; why else would the poets in The Republic have been the first to be cast out? The arts were the first target for budget cuts in Thatcher’s Cabinet, and countries such as the People’s Republic of China and Burma, noted for being repressive fairly universally, are particularly draconian in their treatment of the internet and literature. This argument really needs no rebuttal; if it is the case that part of the coalition’s intention behind library and research funding cuts is to silence potential opposition, it cannot be allowed to work.

Whilst nothing further than the reduction in library budgets has been announced, any cut in the arts would be insurmountably dangerous; and with more disapproval coming from the camp of children’s authors than Her Majesty’s ‘Opposition’, grassroots forces need to move in the same way they did against the NHS Bill. ‘Art is science made clear’; it would be hard to turn a blind eye to it.

Why I’m going to the pickets tomorrow

 

By Sam Coates

My mum is a public sector worker. After my dad died she went to university and got a job as a teaching assistant. She recently qualified as a Higher Level Teaching Assistant, namely, people who teach without being paid teachers wages. Her pension scheme changed recently so that she already pays more into the ‘pot’ than public sector workers used to.

The government’s proposals would mean that public sector workers (mainly low paid women) pay even more again into their pensions and also have to work longer, to 65 or more. In sectors such as teaching, working to that age isn’t always appropriate in what can be a stressful and exhausting job. But most shockingly, the index used to calculate annual pension increases will be changed from the Retail Price index to the Consumer Price index, which reports a lower level of inflation. So when people like my mum retire, their annual pension increases will in fact lose value compared with the real cost of living. This to me is the most unacceptable part of the proposals.

As I mentioned above, most public sector workers are low paid women, so increasing contributions to pensions yet again will have a real impact on their standard of living, turning away from the ‘social contract’ of public sector work meaning lower wages than the private sector, but a decent pension at the end of it.

I was totally shocked by Ed Miliband’s comments regarding the strike, saying that it “inconveniences” people. Whatever happened to solidarity, and standing up for the modestly paid people who set up the Labour party and continue to fund it and back it? By talking about the strike in terms of “inconvenience” and tarring both sides as being equally at fault, he is undermining the very idea of trade unions and their role within society. Yes, if public workers go on strike it makes your day a little bit more difficult, but if we don’t support their battle to defend their conditions, the Government will soon turn on other groups of workers and the private sector will follow suit. And if public sector conditions/pay/pensions are better than the private sector, that’s not a reason to support a downgrading of everyone’s conditions, as it will lead to even more worsened rights across the economy.

That’s why I will be at the picket lines supporting the strikers tomorrow. If you care about your own working conditions then you should back them too. The Green Party supports the strike and I would welcome anyone appalled by the comments of Ed Miliband and the Government to join us in speaking up in favour of workers’ rights.

Opposing the Legal Aid Cuts

Kieran Anderson writing on the proposed legal aid cuts.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that this government simply does not like poor people. The government appears, in fact, to be out to inflict suffering on poor people. And this is much more than the usual Tory “kick them while they’re down” philosophy, but more worryingly representative of a growing consensus in the other main parties.

It is a startlingly obvious, but often ignored, truth that we should judge our society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. By this standard, we are not doing a terribly good job. And we are going to get a lot worse.

Legal aid has had a difficult few years, with the budget having been frozen since 2004. It has shrunk significantly in real terms while dealing with more cases. The Government is seeking to save £350 million, regardless of the suffering and devastation that these cuts have the potential to inflict on everyone in society, especially the most vulnerable people. The Government’s behaviour simply suggests that they do not want poor people to have access to equal legal services or in fact any legal services.

Legal aid covers a wide variety of separate issues, not just criminal, but family and civil. It offers various different levels of aid dependant on the nature of an issue. And not just legal aid as such. There’s a good chance that if you walk into a Citizens Advice Bureaux needing advice on how to deal with a benefits issue or dealing with your debt then it is a form of Legal Aid that will fund the advice that you will receive, but only if you meet some very restrictive criteria.

What the Government wants to do is to completely remove legal aid from a broad range of areas. Clinical negligence, despite the Government recognising the very serious issues involved, is to go. Education cases will go, most employment issues will go, welfare benefits cases will go. Children and family cases will be going, except where there is domestic violence, consumer, debt, immigration, housing, and much more may be going. The scope is shocking

The Government even admits that these cuts will have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable in society. The governments own impact assessments warns that, the cuts will have a wider social and economic cost and may result in reduced social cohesion as a result of a failure to apply the rule of law fairly.

More than the most vulnerable will be affected, society as a whole will be the poorer. Not just by how much harsher a society we will become if the Government gets it’s way, but also as a warning that these cuts risk bringing chaos to the court system.

It is essential to our society that we maintain the rule of law. A situation where the government or big business could not be held to account, a situation where the government or big business could act with near impunity against people who could not afford to fight back, must surely appal us all. Liberty in responding to the government’s proposals stated that “Access to the courts to uphold individual rights does more than simply vindicate the individual in the particular circumstances of his or her case. Successful challenges set precedents, raise awareness and help to instil human rights considerations into public sector decision making.” Cases such as the recent “Trafigura Case” would become impossible to bring under the government’s proposals.

Kenneth Clarke has tried to offer some semblance of a defence claiming that ‘Legal aid will still routinely be available in civil and family cases where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home.” Apparently completely missing the point that, it is often the early intervention that prevents people from ever reaching this state. By cutting people off from this vital early advice more people will be forced into situations where their life, liberty and home are at stake. Also early intervention saves money. The Justice for All campaign reckons that for every £1 invested in early advice, there is a £9 saving.

These cuts, if not disturbing enough in themselves, don’t even appear to be justified in the Government’s own terms. As already mentioned, early advice saves money. These cuts also appear to be directly slashing frontline services, while leaving server governmental and bureaucratic inefficiencies in place. Numerous organisations, such as the Law Society have put forward a wide range of suggestions of how the government could seek alternative means to reduce costs. The Law society has identified £384 million in savings which avoid the savagery of the legal aid cuts.

It is not that there is no need to reform Legal Aid. There is a growing issue of more and more people who do not have sufficient means to properly access legal services, who are however insufficiently poor to qualify for the criteria already in place. This will only increase with the governments current proposals which will only further restrict the numbers able to accesses legal aid.

The Government doesn’t need to make these cuts, there are alternatives. Even if there weren’t, we would surely want to question the legitimacy of doing something this cruel. And we must think of this as cruel. The Governments actions will inevitability lead to a great deal more suffering and hardship. To do this at all is suspect, to do it when there are alternatives, is indefensible.

In finishing. a quote from Tim Dutton QC,
“In much the same way that the National Health Service has been held in high regard, we should be proud that our legal aid system has been considered one of the best at providing justice for the most vulnerable and needy in our society.”

Please consider some of the following:

Support one of the campaigns against Legal Aid cuts, such as Justice for All (www.justice-for-all.org.uk) or Sound of For Justice (www.soundoffforjustice.org).

Lobby Your MP, you can find lots of helpful materials form either campaign’s website.

Have a go at volunteering with your local CAB (http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/join-us/volunteer_bureau_search.htm)

Where Next for Student Anti-Cuts Campaigning?

Ali Thompson, the Young Greens International Co-ordinator, went along to the conference of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts on Saturday. Here’s what he thought.

Last Saturday the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) held
a ‘reinvigoration conference’ at Birmingham university to debate its
future direction and the need for an elected steering committee. For
those who don’t know already the NCAFC was founded almost two years
ago, but probably came to most people’s attention during the student
protests towards the end of last year. Along with the Education
Activist Network (EAN), NCAFC was instrumental in calling the
demonstrations the NUS was unwilling or incapable of properly
organising and though fees seem to be about to increase dramatically
in England and Wales, those protests, occupations and resistance were
almost certainly influential in ensuring every party, bar the Tories,
went into the Scottish Parliament election in May pledging not to
re-introduce fees.

Over the next year, and further ahead, we are going to see the
imposition of those fees, strike action from the Universities and
Colleges Union (UCU), departments cutting courses, firing staff and
closing entirely across the country, and attempts to fully privatise
our education. A united and strong left campaign that brings together
all those who believe education is a public good is going to be
absolutely essential. It was heartening, therefore, to see a wide
variety of political groups at conference: the Alliance for Workers’
Liberty (AWL), Workers’ Power, Student Broad Left (SBL), Counterfire,
Green Parties (both Scottish and England and Welsh), Socialist Party
(SP), Labour Representation Committee (LRC), People and Planet,
anarchists and other independent socialists. There was a reasonable
geographical spread too, with all the devolved nations represented. It
was a little disappointing, however, to see no Socialist Workers’
Party (SWP) members there. One of the most pleasing aspects of our
movement over the last six months has been the lack of sectarianism,
and I hope that whether or not the SWP choose to get involved with
NCAFC — and I hope they do — we can continue to work together against
our real enemies. We’re never going to agree on everything, but we’re
all anti-cuts, pro-public services, and want to build a more
democratic, more sustainable and more equitable economy.

Constitution
Until now the NCAFC has been organised by open meetings with no formal
leadership or committee and,due to those meeting happening there, been
dominated extensively by activists from London and the South East.
Those of us in Scotland, for example, have had no real opportunity to
influence the direction of the ostensibly national campaign. Some at
conference thought this should basically continue, meetings should
move around the country, but remain open to anyone who wanted to
attend. Others thought an elected national committee would be more
representative and democratic. I side with that latter camp. Open
meetings are great if anyone really can attend, but there’s more
needed for that than just a right. Transporting people all over the
country on a regular basis would cost hundreds of pounds, money that
could be better spent actually fighting cuts and building a national
demonstration than organising our own internal meetings.

The proposal we adopted for an elected national committee elected by
STV and with guaranteed gender balance (at least 5 of the 14
nationally elected block must be self-defining female), plus
self-organised regional committees and liberation caucuses, ensures a
degree of continuity while also allowing a spread of geographical
representation and preventing any one faction from dominating the
campaign.

The election itself was, however, somewhat less than ideal. By the
time we had agreed a structure people had almost to leave. That left
us with just half an hour for nominations, hustings and voting. We
also didn’t have software to hand for STV and had to resort to an
online calculator with a very poor interface which took a long time to
enter the data (this is why you never admit to knowing how electoral
systems work).

Fortunately, five women were elected normally, so there was no need to
use the gender balancing mechanism and, though still far from
proportional, we have some geographic diversity with 7 London, 1
Edinburgh, 1 Aberdeen, 1 Liverpool, 1 Northern Ireland and 3
Birmingham activists elected. Unfortunately Workers’ Power,
disagreeing with the process by which the conference was called and
the committee agreed, boycotted the election; despite that, however,
we have AWL, SBL, Green and self-defined libertarian communists on the
committee, so no faction should be too dominant. Bizarrely, NUS NEC
member and NCAFC founder Michael Chessum didn’t make it onto the
committee, but hopefully he can still get a place through the London
regional committee.

Future Action
Going forward, regional conferences and liberation caucuses will have
to be set up. There is already a London committee and a women’s
causus. There is also the Northern Ireland Student Assembly (NISA) and
we’re in the process of forming the Scottish Campaign Against Fees and
Cuts. It remains to be seen how those two regional bodies will
formally relate to NCAFC, but I hope that whether they also affiliate
to EAN, or any other UK wide body, they can work with NCAFC.

The constitution was approved by a relatively small conference of
people (around 90) and can undoubtedly be improved. There should be
another conference in the Autumn, prior to any national demonstration,
to evaluate our structures and make improvements. New elections should
be held then and regularly thereafter, maybe 3-4 times per year.

On June 30th we will see the biggest coordinated strike action in this
country in years. It’s a opportunity for us to connect the struggle of
workers with that of the student movement and NCAFC will be working to
build solidarity action and support over the next few weeks. We need
to work with school students to support the NUT action and walkouts
from pupils.

We agreed to protests at party conferences this Autumn, including
Labour. There was unanimous (I think) support for demonstrating at
governing party conferences (including the SNP and Welsh Labour) and
most activists were in favour of a demonstration at the UK Labour
conference too. Despite the membership of some very good people and
their connection to the labour movement, Labour are passing on cuts on
councils across the country and support cuts nationally. They cannot
be absolved of their complicity. There will, though, be no single line
or message for Labour conference, some will want to lobby them to
oppose cuts, some to protest the whole system; it is best not to try
to force a single message, we need to campaign together where we agree
and accept we will have differences in our preferred tactics.

There will be a national demonstration in Autumn. We need to try to
persuade NUS to support that demonstration, but we will take the lead
and move forward with or without their support. When that happens we
need to broaden our message, against all cuts and in solidarity with
the broader trade union movement; we can’t just fight the same battle
as last year, but neither should we accept that the fight over fees is
lost. La lutte continue.

Finally, we need to organise for NUS conference next year. We need
delegates elected across the country and need to make a much better
job at reaching out and including FE. We need to decide whether to
target specific positions on the NEC and if so which ones. I think
it’s better to focus on winning one or two sabbs than spreading
ourselves too thin. We may not be able to realistically challenge for
president. Liam will be hard, if not impossible, to beat mid-term, but
if we can win at least one VP position we will be in a much better
position to build for the year after.

Clegg’s Lords Reforms – A Positive Step?

Reforming the house of Lords could be Clegg’s one good idea yet, says Harry Wells.

Considering the fairly stunning defeat of AV this last 5th May, you’d think the idea of electoral or constitutional reform would have been shelved for the rest of this government’s term. However, Clegg finally seems to have something both genuinely liberal and genuinely democratic up his sleeve with a reform for the House of Lords.

His proposal is to replace the chamber with one of 300 peers; less than half the current number therefore massively reducing the drain on the House’s resources, with 80% being elected and 20% appointed. Now the strength in Clegg’s argument comes from the fact that he is attempting to reform the less important of Westminster’s houses; with no constituency link. As the House of Lords only exists to scrutinise bills created in the Commons, there is no need to consider location-based election, like the Commons system of first-past-the-post. Pressure groups set up across the political spectrum, particularly in pockets of dissent to the AV referendum in Labour, such as YES2PR, suggest to me that a reform of genuine proportional representation would meet with much more support than the ‘baby step’ (in Clegg’s words) AV referendum. It has to be noted that the Lib Dems did not stand in 2010 with the intention of discussing AV whatsoever; their manifesto pledged a PR system for both Houses of Parliament.

In this humble blogger’s opinion, if Clegg were to propose, like he is, an 80% elected, 20% appointed chamber, with peers elected by the d’Hondt System (the electorate votes for a party, represented by a ‘party list’ of the candidates the party is standing for the House, rather than a person, and seats awarded per party represent the percentage of the vote gained as closely as possible), and appointed by the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet respectively for the remaining 20%, he would unite the majority of his party, the left and centre of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and of course, the Greens; with Cameron also touching upon Lords reform in the last Tory manifesto, potentially him and his frontbench team as well, although the Tory right will be very dangerous ground for the Prime Minister. The far right, UKIP and the BNP, are difficult to predict; whilst UKIP threw themselves behind the Yes vote this May, this reform would be tangling with appointed peers, which, given the party’s tradionalist views, may not sit so well.

Although perhaps not the ‘thumping majority’ Blair once commanded, this potential progressive force would be a far more effective backer than the limp and castrated attempt at ‘reform’ that AV gave; although I personally supported the Yes vote, I knew that it wasn’t going to happen, and also that it wasn’t really that much of a change. The only problem, of course, is the Lords itself.

With some opinion polls quoting as much as 80% of the upper house being completely opposed to reform in the direction of democracy, citing the move would be ‘unconstituional’, even with a Commons majority, Clegg faces a challenge pushing past the protests of those he is reforming. How he deals with this, rather than the question of Commons support, is going to be the real test of his dedication, and his genuine desire to regain some credibility for the Liberal Democrats on the whole; with Lord Steel, the former party leader and Liberal Democrat peer known to be opposed to the reforms, as well as a host of well known Labour and Tory peers, Clegg’s only choice may be to use the Parliament Act to force the bill through the Lords, or perhaps to enter a sort of ‘second coalition’ and attempt to bargain with the left of the upper house by offering concessions. Maybe a 25/75 split of appointment/election? It seems unlikely he will be willing to increase the length of a term from his plan, 15 years per peer, with a third of the peers re-elected every five years, rather than all at once.

Whatever route Clegg decides to take, two things can be concluded as almost certain. This plan is going to meet with a lot more support than the AV referendum from the left; and a LOT more opposition from the right.

 

Can We Learn from the German Greens?

German Green politics had a comparable infancy to that of the UK, with the same issues causing a growth for support in both Western Germany and the UK, but by the 1980’s, Green politics in the UK was increasingly sliding against the German equivalent. In 1980, the vote share of the Green party in West Germany was 1.5% (similar to the UK Greens in the 2010 parliamentary elections). A centrist conservative faction of the party split in 1982 and by 1987, the share of the vote had increased to 8.7%. A temporary blip in Green support during the reunification of Germany saw the share of the vote drop to 5%. The German Greens first went into government in coalition with the German equivalent of Labour in 1998. This was with a 6.7% share of the overall vote and 47 Bundestag seats. Subsequently the Greens went out of government in the mid 2000’s, largely due to disillusionment from the Green electorate on achieving policy goals due to the restraints of coalition government and arguments over participation in conflict in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Perhaps the key achievement of the German Greens during their years in power as part of a coalition government was the ‘denuclearisation’ of German strategic energy policy in the early 2000’s. Currently the German Green party has a 10% (68 seats) share of the vote in the Bundestag and 12% (14 seats) of the European election vote.

Before fortifying ourselves with bratwurst and Jaegermeister before hitting the election trail, however, there are several points to consider:

Mixed Member Proportional Representation This is the method by which Germany elects representatives to the Bundestag. In the UK, it is also known as the additional member system or AV+, and was recommended as a UK voting modification as far back as 1976. Essentially, it is a combination of first past the post and proportional representation. You have a list of candidates you wish to get into parliament, and you gain seats based on your vote share. However, if you happen to gain a seat outright in an area (first past the post), this is deducted from your total seat share.

Multiple Parties and Coalition Government Germany has more political parties with a more divided vote than the UK. Governments are made up of coalitions as the norm rather than the exception: this is often the cause of other nation’s despairing of the complexity of German politics.

Local Issues and States Germany is historically a nation fused from Dukedoms and Princely states. As in America, support for parties locally over single issues such as power plant construction can be much more intense than in the UK. Also, this can have the effect of buffering voters from dissent with the performance of the national party.

Hence the playing ground in the UK is not quite as level as in Germany. Both UK and German Green parties are parties of growth with increasing vote shares and number of seats in local, national and European government. It is not simply that the UK ignores environmental issues: indeed, charities and campaign organisations such as Greenpeace have some of their largest numbers of membership here, and have real impact on the international stage. We are thirty years behind the Germans, but they were able to go from 1% to 5% of the vote share within a decade. So what can we apply to the UK green party in order to increase our share of the vote?

Visible Competence In Germany, there is a perception of Green politicians as being good, reliable and hardworking. This has led to their de-facto election in certain areas because they are simply regarded as being competent. In the UK, we have one MP, two MEPs, two London assembly members and two councils where Greens are strong. I can personally vouch for how hard elected officials in Norwich work for their constituents, especially those aged below thirty. Essentially, every Green elected official needs to be working harder, listening more, and working smarter than their counterparts in the main three parties whilst avoiding potentially damaging ‘gaffs’. Reputations are hard to win, but easy to lose.

Focus on key local issues If you look at maps of the German political landscape, some areas are much more pro green than others (no difference there!). However, the communication of big single issues appears much more effective in Germany, and in the UK, similar issues are perhaps not acted on as well as they should. For example, I was first aware of the fight over an incinerator being constructed in King’s Lynn, Norfolk because of a sign in a field next to the A47! (This helped the election of the first West Norfolk Green Councillor, too!).

Change to AV+ Most leftwards commentators prior to the AV referendum acknowledged that AV was the start, not the finished solution for reforming UK politics. Any power-sharing agreements in future UK governments should have voting reform at the top of the list. The sight of Nick Clegg being used as a football and given the cold shoulder by Ed Milliband should not be a deterrent, and reform should not be watered down.

Attack the demographic In Germany, the Green vote is higher among higher earners and urban dwellers, and lower amongst the unemployed and working class. This contrasts with the UK, where suburban lower and middle income voters, along with a higher proportion of the unemployed are the norm. Should policy shift accordingly?