Two months after the vote: from LibDems to Greens

Part four of our post-election series. Let down by the ConDem deal, Jane Watkinson explains why she defected from the LibDems to the Green Party.

[This is a guest post]

When I decided to defect from the LibDems to The Greens, part of me was worried that I had made a mistake. All sorts of questions went through my head: have I gone too early? would it have been better to fight my case within?

I am pleased to say, after around a month of being in The Greens, I am 100% confident my decision was the right one. I have never been so comfortable in arguing my politics – my lefty views were constrained within a party, which has a central outlook/ideology that includes the desirability of a rapidly shrinking state. This is illustrated quite well when considering how much support the LibDems have thrown behind the ‘Big Society’.

If the election was repeated, I would obviously now vote for The Greens. Locally in Leeds, The Greens have formed a minority with the Labour to run the council, and in doing so, reached a very comprehensive agreement with a £30 million housing insulation programme included. Nationally, The Greens picked up their first MP, and arguably would have gained at least one more if the LibDems had not run such a misleading campaign.

Many aspects of the election outcome were hugely disappointing. One of the most central concerns I had/have with the ConDem deal is the LibDems apparent abandonment of their left progressive ideas/policies. Furthermore, they have become very submissive to Tory pressure when it comes to key lefty issues/policies such as capital gains tax and the now very regressive nature of the income threshold rise – as the progressive LibDem policies that were going to be used to pay for it have since been dropped and thus, it will be funded largely out of regressive public spending cuts.

These latter developments only confirmed my earlier concerns I had with the initial proposals that saw them drop key central policies and adopt what to me was all but for the smallest of details a Tory manifesto. Whilst the Tories still complain of how hard done by they are, they forget that the LibDems had to accept key policies watered down (e.g. income threshold and AV), key policies abandoned (e.g. immigration and Europe), key policies being sent to often pointless commissions (e.g. breaking up the banks, House of Lords reform) and also having to give up any chance of opposing controversial decisions (e.g. marriage tax and tuition fee raises).

It is hard to find positives from the ConDem deal. Regardless, they have scrapped ID cards and the building of a third runway at Heathrow, whilst proceeding with a more open government and genuinely reversing the assault of civil liberties from the previous Labour government. However, this would have happened without the LibDems, as they were all key Tory proposals. Furthermore, other policies, such as the marriage tax, are undermining progressive moves in extending civil rights, as we see the state becoming more influential in people’s personal life.

For the progressive left to make successful inroads in this centre-right neo-liberal government, we need to see an advancement of pluralism. The left really need to work together in this, tribalism should be reduced as much as possible so the fight for a fairer and sustainable economy and society is advanced and achieved.

Jane Watkinson blogs at My Political Ramblings.

2010 Election special: the Green Party

Part 9 of our Pre-Election guide. Today, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell explains why it's time to give the Green Party a chance.

Labour has lost its heart and soul. It has become the party of war, privatisation and the erosion of hard-won civil liberties. The Lib Dems support free market capitalism, use dirty tricks during election campaigns, and when they get into office they always drift to the right. The Conservatives are split between modernisers and the reactionary old guard. Their green-friendly image is contradicted by their anti-green policies of supporting new motorways, aviation expansion and more nuclear power stations – just like Labour.

As I see it, the Green Party is the most progressive force in British politics, with a visionary agenda for democratic reform, social justice, human rights, global equity, environmental protection, peace and internationalism.

With an empowering new political and economic paradigm, the Greens offer the best hope for radical reform, as set out in our Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.

Unlike the far left, the Greens often win. We’ve got elected representatives in local councils all over Britain, and in the London Assembly and the Scottish and European Parliaments. Opinion polls suggest that the Greens are poised to win their first MPs. Caroline Lucas is leading in Brighton Pavilion and the Greens are also polling well in Norwich South and Lewisham Deptford.

The Greens are not just an environmental party. We are also a social justice party, with commitments to industrial democracy, workers cooperatives and trade union rights. Our aim is a democratic economy, which gives all employees a real say in how their institution is run and which utilises their accumulated skill and experience to improve private enterprises and public services.

We want to make society fairer and more equal, and to redistribute wealth and power. This democratisation and socialisation of the economy is necessary, we argue, to improve productivity, prevent a repeat of the reckless decisions that led to the economic meltdown and to reorient production to meet people’s needs. This includes switching from weapons production to the manufacture of renewable energy and advanced medical technologies, which are socially useful and have huge export potential.

The Greens are not retreads of the old Left. Traditional socialism is flawed. It is based on a left-wing version of big business growth-driven economics, with the goal of producing more and consuming more. This uncritical drive to maximise economic expansion is destroying our planet, causing life-threatening pollution, climate chaos and species extinction. It is also dramatically depleting reserves of natural resources, such as oil, that are vital to the global economy and to the long-term maintenance of a decent standard of living. This old-style growth-fixated economics, which is shared by both the left and the right, is outdated and reactionary. It is time for fresh thinking.

The Greens argue that quality of life and fair shares for all are more important than the left’s simplistic agenda of spending more on public services. Greens would, of course, invest more in health and education. But we also believe that government needs to radically rethink basic premises, like shifting the focus in the NHS from curative to preventative medicine. Our aim is to ensure that many fewer people get sick in the first place, rather than merely throwing more money into treating people once they become ill.

The Greens realise that the whole economic system has to change, in order to meet people’s needs and to ensure the survival of life on this planet. We propose a synthesis of the best bits of red and green, combining social justice with sustainable economics.

A good example of how we would do this is our proposed Roosevelt-style Green New Deal. It would stimulate the economy through large-scale government investment in socially and environmentally valuable energy conservation, renewable energy and cheap, hi-tech public transport. This would slash carbon emissions and tackle climate change, as well as creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs.

We’d fund the Green New Deal by axing Labour and Tory plans to waste £160 billion on Trident nuclear missiles (£76bn), super aircraft carriers (£4bn), Eurofighter aircraft (£20bn), A400 air transporter (£3bn), national identity register (£10bn), the Afghan war (£5bn), motorway building and widening (£30bn) and NHS computerisation (£20bn).

The Green Party rejects the failed neo-liberal economic policies that are backed by the three main parties - policies that recently pushed the world to the brink of a second great depression and which leave billions of people malnourished, illiterate, homeless, diseased and impoverished. But amid the gloom, we say: A different world is possible. The future is bright – bright Green.

Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner and a member of the Green Party. Read more about his work at: http://www.petertatchell.net

[Tomorrow: the Conservatives, by M. Jackart]

Peter Tatchell: "Boris Johnson? A big mistake"

Speaking to Hagley Road to Ladywood, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has his say on the London elections, Ken Livingstone vs Boris Johnson, celebrity culture, and George Galloway's recent nonsense. Interview by Claude Carpentieri

Gordon Brown may have said that he’s "losing patience" with Robert Mugabe, but if only the world had been listening in due time. For years, Peter Tatchell and a number of fellow human rights activists were amongst the very few who tried to open the world’s eyes on Mugabe’s genocidal policies. In 1999, Tatchell ambushed Mugabe’s car during an official state visit in London and performed a citizen’s arrest. But when the police were called, the one who was let free to go was Mugabe ("sorry-for-any-inconvenience") while the human rights activists were jailed.

Now 56, Peter Tatchell is possibly the most unrelenting human rights campaigner in the UK. If Britain finally managed to turn over a new leaf and left Soviet-style anti-gay policies behind, part of the credit goes to him. From the 1990 "Kiss-in" at Piccadilly Circus to protest against arrests of gay men for kissing in public, to the stoical campaigning against Section 28 (one of the most shameful pieces of legislation in the history of Britain), Peter Tatchell has been at the forefront of the fight against religious fundamentalism and bigotry.

Tatchell never gave a shit about trends and media popularity. He may have recently been praised as a "national treasure" or "a hero of our time", but when for decades he risked his own skin and got himself arrested or beaten to stand for human rights in Britain as well as the Eastern bloc, Zimbabwe or the Middle East, most of the left opted for blinkers instead. I must say I couldn’t believe my luck when I was offered the chance to speak to him. Amongst the topics we discussed, the fact that London may be at danger of capitulating to a bigot.

The debate on the London elections is heating up. Do you find it disturbing that the media can spend so much time on the fact that "Ken Livingstone has five children by three different women"? How on earth does that affect Londoners and their daily lives???

PT: Ken’s personal life is totally irrelevant. It’s no one else’s business. The same goes for Boris Johnson’s extra-marital affairs and Brian Paddick’s same-sex partner. Judge the candidates on their integrity and their policies.

As a critic of Ken Livingstone over his courting of al-Qaradawi, do you actually support him in the mayoral election?

PT: I will give my first preference to Sian Berry, the Green Party candidate. She is the most progressive, with the best policies on housing, transport, jobs, crime, equal opportunities and the environment. Moreover, she is not sectarian. Sian is open, inclusive, fair, honest, accessible and democratic. In addition, it would be brilliant to have a woman Mayor - and someone young to lead what is a youthful city.

My second preference will go to Ken Livingstone. Boris Johnson would be a big mistake. He is clownish, disorganised, not well informed, has little grasp of policy detail and is on record as saying some very bigoted things about various minority communities.

Based on existing polls, Ken is the only candidate who can stop Boris. In any case, Ken's policies as Mayor have been mostly positive and benefited Londoners. All in all, he has been a good Mayor. He should be judged in the round. Despite his flaws and policy misjudgements (such his fondness for high-rise office blocks, closeness to big business, promotion of bendy buses etc), he is way better than Boris.

I don't hold personal grudges. I would never base my voting intentions on what bad things Ken may have done to me personally (he unjustly denounced me as an Islamophobe in 2004 because I criticised the fundamentalist cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). The interests of all Londoners must come first.

I do, however, hope that Ken will listen to the valid criticisms that I and other friends and allies have made and, if he is re-elected, that he will reform his administration to end the favouritism, personal vendettas, sectarianism, control freakery and unsavory alliances that have sometimes characterised City Hall.

Opinion polls suggest Boris Johnson's ahead. Is this the official signal for the country's swing to the right that many analysts have forecast? Given that in terms of policies, instead, polls suggest a majority of pro-Ken views, how can someone become Mayor of London purely for the jokes they tell?

PT: A victory for Boris would be a big boost for the Tories. It might give them momentum to win the next general election. Mind you, although I don’t want the Conservatives back in power, Labour doesn’t deserve to win either. Gordon Brown is pursuing Tony Blair’s disastrous policies and piling on disasters of his own: the Iraq war, abolition of the 10p rate of tax for low earners, ID cards, expanded nuclear power, post office closures, the renewal of Trident nuclear missiles and plans to extend the detention of terror suspects to 42 days. These are reactionary policies. That’s why I no longer support Labour. I am backing the Greens and standing as their parliamentary candidate for Oxford East at the next general election.

Heat magazine is officially more popular than The Independent. How do you view Britain's so-called celebrity culture?

PT: Celebrity culture is the bane of modern Britain. It epitomises the greedy, me-first, fame-driven, consumerist lifestyle that is promoted by, and pandered to, by the media. True achievement comes through talent and hard work. They are no easy routes to doing things that are truly individually rewarding and socially valuable.

Why should an 18-year-old guy take an interest in politics today? They were anti-Iraq war en-masse and it happened anyway. They were against tuition fees yet Blair still ploughed ahead and now fees are here to stay. What do you answer to the "what's the point" argument?

PT: If young people walk away from politics, the careerists and self-servers win. Decisions taken by politicians determine our future. That’s why politics matters. The ramifications of politics are too important to be left to the professional political elite.

For a short while some of the press timidly focussed on the scandal of 'non-doms' paying virtually no tax in Britain. Yet most people are still unaware of it, or totally resigned that nothing will ever change. Will it ever?

PT: We, the people, can change Britain and the world for the better. But only if we are determined to see change and get organised. All of us who care need to work together, across generations and politics, around issues like civil liberties, economic justice, fair voting, equality for all, de-militarisation, animal rights, international solidarity, environmental protection and many other big local, national and global issues. The poll tax protests, especially the millions who refused to pay the poll tax or delayed their payments, showed that ordinary people can force governments to abandon crazy policies.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

PT: Obama is better than Clinton. But I would not vote for either of them. The Green anti-corporate candidate Ralph Nader would be my choice. He’s far more radical, and has concrete, practical solutions too.

The recent killing of 20-year-old Sophie Lancaster, brutally murdered only because she was a "goth", reminded us of the level of brutality in Britain. A petition to extend the definition of "hate crime" to include offences against people based on their appearance was recently submitted to the Government. As a long-time campaigner for the inclusion of homophobia within the definition of "Hate Crime", do you back the idea?

PT: Yes, hate crime legislation should be all-inclusive.

Last month George Galloway said: "All the (British) papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That's not true" [Watch his dismal performance on The Wright Stuff by clicking here].
An act of political calculation or does he honestly believe what he's saying (that's crap either way, I say)?

PT: I don’t know why George said that nonsense. Whatever his rationale, he is wrong. It looked a bit like he was pushing the Iranian government’s propaganda. He works for Press TV, which is funded by the Iranian regime. Perhaps he’s putting his mouth where his money comes from? I don’t know. All the Iranian and international human rights groups agree that gay people in Iran are arrested, jailed, flogged, tortured and sometimes executed.

I presume you had a look at "What's Left?", the book written last year by Nick Cohen of The Observer and that Hagley Road to Ladywood reviewed. Cohen's argument was largely based on so-called straw-man logic. However, when you watch performances like Galloway's on The Wright Stuff, it does make you think. Why is there still such a chunk of the left that would turn a blind eye or two towards mysoginy, anti-semitism and homophobia? How on earth are you an "Islamophobe" if you simply frown upon gay men being flogged to death in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

PT: Sadly, large chunks of the left have either capitulated to Blairism and Brownism, or they have descended into the crude simplicity of anti-Americanism, which sometimes leads them to back anti-US movements and regimes like Iran and Hezbollah. It is absurd to condemn as anti-Muslim those people, like myself, who defend Muslim women and gays against fundamentalist fanatics.

Let's remain on the Middle East. I don't know if you ever got a chance to get to know Tony Blair. Why do you think he ploughed ahead the way he did with Iraq? Messianic conviction or what?

PT: Blair was always a pro-American Atlanticist. He could never conceive of Britain having an independent foreign policy, or Europe being a bulwark against US hegemony. So he threw his lot with Clinton and Bush. Turning the UK into Washington’s poodle was a huge and very insulting error of judgement. The Iraq debacle destroyed Blair’s credibility and reputation forever.

I wrote my dissertation on Section 28. Even 10 years ago it was unthinkable it would ever be scrapped. And it was 1999 when a nail bomb blew up the Admiral Duncan in Soho. Is Britain really less homophobic today?

PT: Public attitudes are much more accepting and understanding. We really have become a more liberal, tolerant society. There are still backwaters of racism, misogyny and homophobia but they are a minority and getting smaller.

Peter Tatchell will be the Green Party's parliamentary candidate for the Oxford East constituency at the next general elections.

[You can read about Peter Tatchell's work on his website http://www.petertatchell.net/]

Claude Carpentieri