As ballot papers begin to arrive on member’s doorsteps, a Yougov poll of the British public commissioned by the Yes campaign shows 84% say yes, a Green Party leader would help our electoral chances, against 16% saying no.
Although some voices within the party contend that the public are mistaken about the effect of having a leader, I’ve not personally heard one member of the public or commentator say anything other than ‘of course’. (I suspect the 16% in the Yougov poll think that our electoral chances are beyond salvation with or without a leader.)
Some members have responded by asking whether we should respond to public opinion in this way. They hold that being leaderless is a matter of principle. If we get power, we will surely be corrupted; leaders and electoralism are doomed to water down principles. With the planet in deadly peril, we must remain aloof in our Bat Cave and hold out for the day that everyone turns to us for salvation.
In which case the argument for leaderlessness seems to me to be an argument for despair.
I think the sort of disaster scenario many of the No side envisage, such as Peak oil shutting the economy down, would most likely result in military dictatorship, rather than fluffy green anarchism. Call me conventional, but I’m in a political party to use the existing structures to deal with this stuff before the system collapses, not to say ‘I told you so’ as the tanks roll in.
Rupert Read said,
November 8, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
EXACTLY SO. Those against this change have a depressing view of human nature — are we really so corruptible that having a Leader is bound to lead us to selling out? If so, then we might as well all give up now.
I don’t hold with such a counsel of despair.
Grammar Police said,
November 8, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
The ironic thing about your headline, is that most people don’t care whether you’ve a leader or not. If asked the question “Should the Green Party have a leader?” most people would say yes, because they’ve no idea why it wouldn’t - to the vast majority it just sounds odd. Indeed, to those who’ve ever heard of the Principal Speakers, they probably just think that’s another word for leader.
I wonder if the Green Party won’t end up damaging themselves with this referendum. Whichever side wins, the other is going to be disappointed and demotivated. If the “yes” camp win the plurality but not the required majority, that’s going to be even more demoralising for them. And if you do decide to get a leader it’s going to give the Green Left and non Green Left factions to fight over (and my personal view is that the Green Left way is the way to self-destruction . . .)
Mike Armstrong said,
November 8, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
This argument for having a leader is purely based on what the general public thinks. The wider population do not vote Green, but that 16% of the population is more than the party’s support across the country.
The majority of potential Green Party voters are quite probably against having a leader.
Jim Killock said,
November 9, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Mike, that 16% were people who either throught that having a leader would make no difference or that it would be better without a leader.
The lack of a clear leader comes up very strongly in polls of our potential Green voters as a reason that they do not vote for us as often as they might, nearly as strongly as appearing on the TV more often, although not as strongly as making people aware of our non-environmental policies.
We’ve never had responses from the public about not having a leader being a good thing. But it is the effects that we are (and the this polls is) talking about. A leader or co-leaders, we believe, would be more clearly identified with the party than ‘Principal Speakers’ and have more credibility as a result, so would be able to communicate more effectively. Although the No campaign contest this, their main objection is that a leader could concentrate power and corrupt the party. But there is no evidence of this in the motion. The motion goes out of its way to make a leader and deputy or co-leaders extremely accountable.