December 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm · Filed under Green Party
Only a couple of days on from the vote, most of the party has begun to settle and I hope can see that this change does not mean a departure from our values of participation and internal democracy. In fact, the result if anything has been an enhancement of participation, with nearly half the membership voting – much higher than in many internal elections.
Electing a formal leadership will have important external ramifications. The most important of these is that the people with the titles will be taken more seriously, and as being strong embodiments of Green Party values. It will be important, therefore, to pick the right people. There is quite a choice out there, and I hope the election is contested by a range of candidates, most likely in the Autumn this year.
That will also create a big and positive media opportunity for us, if we get it right. Our Conferences sometimes get quite a lot of coverage, but at other times can be less well covered than we would we like. Part of this, I would say, is because our internal debates are of most interest to party activists, whereas who we elect as our leaders, and what they articulate about where the party wants to go, is hopefully going to be a matter of public interest.
mattf said,
December 5, 2007 @ 12:15 am
I agree with your analysis Jim, it will be interesting to see what other analysis comes out of this result from others. I found it interesting that the vote in favour was very similar to that of locally elected greens in favour. There are lessons from this. One of these lessons is of course that there remains a quarter of the party that requires reassurance about any changes, but just as important is that three quarters wanted a change that has been difficult to achieve, particularly through conference. This would suggest to me that the voice of locally elected greens, where it may differ from activists taking decisions at conference, has not been given due representation, and that this is a formal change that needs to occur in some way. That’s not to argue for a swing too far from where we are, but a recogniton is needed by non publicly elected significant actvists that there has been a blind spot around legitimacy and mandates that needs looking at.
Finally, Jim I think it fair to say that you have been vindicated in your public stance ( as one of the signatories of the referendum motion that succeeded so well) with a lot of support from members so well done you for essentially being representative internally of what we can now see has been a significant silent majority. I’m sure many of those who voted Yes will be glad of your continued presence at the heart of the party.
Jim Killock said,
December 5, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Thanks Matt. I think there are two questions that need to be asked now: why did people vote Yes, and how do we make leadership work?
In my view, members want the party to have some ambition, good organisation, public profile, and provide strong articulation of their views. That is a common sense agenda, and that is why they voted for this change.
In terms of making leadership work, this needs a consensual approach from all parts of the party. Communication and consensus building are all-important. Resources and strategic thinking will help deliver benefits to the party and must be agreed and put in place.
In fact, right now, things get pretty prosaic. It’s quite simple things that will turn the party into a powerful force in British politics. Leadership or no leadership, that always was the case.
mattf said,
December 5, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Jim, you’re right to say it’s quite simple things we need now, in fact i’ll name the main two - we need administrative and research capacity support for the new leadership ( whether a single leader of co-leaders they need a team of at least two people solely for them), and we need the funds to provide it. The funds should either come from new sources or from existing budget lines - for example GPRC should not be spending two days for every meeting - it’s an unnecesary cost to the party. A reveiw of existing spending would provide clear examples like this where budget lines are not being used to their best effect.
More importantly we need fundraising, and not just through increased membership. The gift arm of green trade is under utilised, conference budget should only be given to organisers that will commit to a profit in their bid for the work, and if they don’t make one they won’t make the preferred bidders list next time. A series of national party events could be held with celebrated supporters. There’s loads of ideas but it’s not clear to me who is responsible for making them happen.
Jim Killock said,
December 5, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
I had a similar different idea about the first steps: planned membership growth, fund raising and improved administration, to fund the things you mention. We have around nine months to get the party onto a firm footing for the start of a formal elected leadership, and better funding is of course key. The Executive is responsible, but probably it needs to think more about staff and management than personal delivery.