Where did it all go wrong for the Greens

[deltic]

Thought it might be of interest to add to this series of views on the future of our political parties.

The 1989 European Elections saw the Greens big break through gaining 14.5% of the national vote displacing the Social Liberal Democrats as the country's third party. However those elections were fought on first past the post so they failed to get any MEPs elected. The 1992 General Election saw them fielding over 250 candidates (a number not surpassed till 2010) but their vote collapsed to 0.5%.

Over the next 20 years they slowly increased their political presence, in 1999 thanks to proportional representation they gained their first MEPs and the real break through came in 2010 with their first MP. But despite expectations they would seats in places like Norwich and Bristol, Brighton remains their only Parliamentary seat.

With the almost complete collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote as a result of the 2010 Coalition government I expected them to make steady progress and possibly replace the Lib Dems as a major political force. However, while they achieved their highest share of the vote at the 2015 General Election it was still under 4% and has declined since then. The 2019 European Elections saw them at 12% of the vote and gain 7 MEPs but obviously they have all gone now. They have never made any impression at a parliamentary by-election - their best performance was back in 2009 when they won 10% of the vote in Norwich North.

On a more positive note they have been making slow but steady progress in relation to council seats and now hold over 500, compared to 2,500 for Lib Dems, 6,000 Labour and nearly 7,000 Conservative - the SNP have less than 500. They are also the coalition leader in 2 councils that have no overall control.

So why have the Greens failed to break through and replace the Lib Dems as the party of the protest vote following 1989 and 2010 and how much more progress can they make at a local government level?

 

[GusB]

Has it really gone wrong for the Greens, though?

Their support in local and devolved elections has either held steady or has increased. There's a Green MSP in all of the Scottish Parliament regions except one, and there's even a single Green on my local council (Moray), which I would never have expected!

As far as Westminster performance is concerned, I think there's one main reason: first past the post. If we had a different electoral system I think you'd find that the Greens would do much better.

 

[windingroad]

As far as Westminster performance is concerned, I think there's one main reason: first past the post. If we had a different electoral system I think you'd find that the Greens would do much better.

Absolutely. It would be a lot more accurate to ask where it all went wrong for our electoral system!

So why have the Greens failed to break through and replace the Lib Dems as the party of the protest vote following 1989 and 2010 and how much more progress can they make at a local government level?

The Liberal Democrats are generally perceived (for better or worse) to be a moderate, centrist party. This makes them a palatable protest vote for people on both the left and the right, which is one of the reasons I think they tend to do well in byelections. The same dynamic works for them in certain constituencies in national elections too, often as a Labour/Tory-lite alternative for people who can't quite stomach voting for either of the main two parties.

The Greens on the other hand are firmly on the left, which means they're unlikely to fulfill the same role, and it's a lot harder for them to carry individual constituencies. If the voting system was proportionate I think they'd have a much greater presence, partially because existing votes would be better represented, but also because their vote share would increase once people feel there's actually a chance of representation. The same sort of thing is probably true on the opposite side of the political spectrum too.

 

[thenorthern]

In recent years their politics has been dominated by trans issues. I can't remember where I read it but someone mentioned if they spend as much time on Green Issues than they do on Trans issues they would be in a much better position.

Until Jonathan Bartley came into the role of party co leader the party was dominated by women which in my mind put men off. Female leaders are great but when all the best known members are all women it kind of puts men off in the same way that if all the big names in the Conservative Party were men it would put women off.

 

[yorkie]

The Greens are very split on various issues; for example there are sensible Greens who support HS2 but there are far too many in the party who are against any form of transport (other than walking/cycling; which is fine for short distances, but the idea we should all be confined to our local area is absurd).

There is no way I can vote for the Greens until they sort themselves out and weed out those who are fans of the dark ages; I have no confidence in this happening any time soon, if ever.

There are too many in the Green party who are hard left to be palatable to those who are left of centre and not keen on extremist ideologies.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So why have the Greens failed to break through and replace the Lib Dems as the party of the protest vote following 1989 and 2010 and how much more progress can they make at a local government level?

It is because people vote different ways in different elections dependant on different priorities.

Personally I have voted for 4 different political parties and an independent (Ken Livingstone in the first London mayoral election) but at general elections have always voted for the same party. The reason the Greens have never done well at general elections is the same reason Nigel Farage’s parties haven’t – people might agree with certain aspects of their agenda and vote for them in certain circumstances but don’t consider them a serious political party worthy of voting for in a general election.

 

[GS250]

The Greens are very split on various issues; for example there are sensible Greens who support HS2 but there are far too many in the party who are against any form of transport (other than walking/cycling; which is fine for short distances, but the idea we should all be confined to our local area is absurd).

There is no way I can vote for the Greens until they sort themselves out and weed out those who are fans of the dark ages; I have no confidence in this happening any time soon, if ever.

There are too many in the Green party who are hard left to be palatable to those who are left of centre and not keen on extremist ideologies.

Their policy on immigration is completely contradictory. On one hand they appear to be wanting to save every piece of green belt land possible. Yet on the other...they appear to want little control over who comes into the country and are totally indifferent to the predictable rise in population levels.

 

[Scotrail12]

I don't really understand who the Greens really appeal to. There are some people my age (20) who support them but I reckon they'll grow out of it as they get older. As with most generations, people tend to start off very left wing and evolve towards being more conservative. Other than that, I just can't see a solid voter base. I don't think they've really failed per-se, just never going to be a huge success.

 

[windingroad]

The Greens are very split on various issues; for example there are sensible Greens who support HS2 but there are far too many in the party who are against any form of transport (other than walking/cycling; which is fine for short distances, but the idea we should all be confined to our local area is absurd).

There is no way I can vote for the Greens until they sort themselves out and weed out those who are fans of the dark ages; I have no confidence in this happening any time soon, if ever.

I think (somewhat paradoxically) their relative lack of national representation is one of the things that gets in their way, in the sense that less scrutiny is applied and they have less of an incentive to professionalise their operation. If they were a realistic contender, or had more MPs to worry about keeping, I think they'd sharpen up. That probably won't happen until such a time that the electoral system changes, or there's a big unexpected realignment.

There are too many in the Green party who are hard left to be palatable to those who are left of centre and not keen on extremist ideologies.

Out of interest, how would you define yourself politically, if you're comfortable doing so? I'm genuinely curious (not as a gotcha) as I've seen you express viewpoints I'd associate with various areas on the spectrum. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course!

 

[Sorcerer]

I don't necessarily see the Green Party as bad, but their credibility was diminished for me the moment I discovered their opposition to nuclear power. I understand not all the Greens are against it, but the party stance is very clearly in favour of phasing it out.

EN014 Nuclear power, coal and incineration of waste will be phased out.

 

[windingroad]

I don't really understand who the Greens really appeal to. There are some people my age (20) who support them but I reckon they'll grow out of it as they get older. As with most generations, people tend to start off very left wing and evolve towards being more conservative. Other than that, I just can't see a solid voter base. I don't think they've really failed per-se, just never going to be a huge success.

It's worth keeping in mind that a lot of that rightward drift (though not all, of course) has historically been linked with things like home ownership and the relative financial security that brings. Increasingly that is becoming out of reach for huge swathes of the country, and I think that will change the political calculus unless a solution is found.

In general I also think it's probably a mistake to think we can extrapolate political drift based on past assumptions, given how quickly things change. Things like the internet have allowed younger generations to be much more politically engaged than in the past, and there's really no knowing how that will pan out in the long-term. Something I've definitely noticed is a general radicalisation: people I know on the right have become more right-wing, and people I know on the left have become more left-wing.

 

[Typhoon]

In recent years their politics has been dominated by trans issues. I can't remember where I read it but someone mentioned if they spend as much time on Green Issues than they do on Trans issues they would be in a much better position.

Until Jonathan Bartley came into the role of party co leader the party was dominated by women which in my mind put men off. Female leaders are great but when all the best known members are all women it kind of puts men off in the same way that if all the big names in the Conservative Party were men it would put women off.

Would it? Margaret Thatcher's 'vegetables' were all men, Major had token numbers (2, I believe) in his cabinets. Didn't do them any harm. Cameron was more generous, although the LibDems brought none to the coalition if I recall correctly, Theresa May being the only one to fill the great offices of state. May was fairly generous but it didn't do her any good. It has only been Boris Johnson who has given prominent roles to a significant number of women and when you look who they are, the most prominent can probably be described as 'Marmite' politicians.

I personally think that Caroline Lucas is an excellent role model for a prospective Green MP, I'm not sure her gender enters into it.

 

[GusB]

Another thing that I think is worth remembering is that there isn't a single entity called the "Green Party". The Scottish Greens, Green Party of England and Wales and the Green Party of Ireland are all separate, so there will naturally be some differences in policy.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The Greens are very split on various issues; for example there are sensible Greens who support HS2 but there are far too many in the party who are against any form of transport (other than walking/cycling; which is fine for short distances, but the idea we should all be confined to our local area is absurd).

The opposition to HS2 is largely based upon the fact that it isn't really transport for all, but rather transport for the few. There's a good argument that it could make more sense to use the money spent on HS2 on local railway lines instead, especially to combat rural exclusion.

I don't necessarily see the Green Party as bad, but their credibility was diminished for me the moment I discovered their opposition to nuclear power. I understand not all the Greens are against it, but the party stance is very clearly in favour of phasing it out.

The Greens have a huge problem with nuclear. The German Greens are a textbook example: they are supporting the use of even more coal at the expense of nuclear, which is just mindblowingly idiotic.

 

[yorkie]

The opposition to HS2 is largely based upon the fact that it isn't really transport for all, but rather transport for the few. There's a good argument that it could make more sense to use the money spent on HS2 on local railway lines instead, especially to combat rural exclusion.

Well sticking to the thread title I am not voting for the Greens while they oppose it but we're not going to get into a debate about the merits or not of HS2 as that would belong in a separate thread (and has indeed been done to death)

The Greens have a huge problem with nuclear. The German Greens are a textbook example: they are supporting the use of even more coal at the expense of nuclear, which is just mindblowingly idiotic.

Yes that's another problem with the Greens.

In summary, they are extremely unelectable.

 

[Sorcerer]

The Greens have a huge problem with nuclear. The German Greens are a textbook example: they are supporting the use of even more coal at the expense of nuclear, which is just mindblowingly idiotic.

Such are the unfortunate consequences of the knee-jerk decisions made in response to the Fukushima disaster. Thankfully though Finland's Green Party has seen sense and now supports nuclear energy, so I'm hoping that the Green parties of the UK follow suite sooner rather than later, otherwise I just won't personally see them as a credible choice for me as a left-leaning voter.

 

[thenorthern]

Would it? Margaret Thatcher's 'vegetables' were all men, Major had token numbers (2, I believe) in his cabinets. Didn't do them any harm. Cameron was more generous, although the LibDems brought none to the coalition if I recall correctly, Theresa May being the only one to fill the great offices of state. May was fairly generous but it didn't do her any good. It has only been Boris Johnson who has given prominent roles to a significant number of women and when you look who they are, the most prominent can probably be described as 'Marmite' politicians.

I personally think that Caroline Lucas is an excellent role model for a prospective Green MP, I'm not sure her gender enters into it.

Different times to now, you have to remember that while Thatcher was the first woman to hold a great office of state the next woman to hold the one was Margaret Beckett in 2006. Now it's considered routine.

With the Greens going into the 2015 election their biggest names were Caroline Lucas, Jenny Jones and Natalie Bennett. Bennett don't get me wrong was a poor leader but it would have been useful to have a man amongst those three.

 

[TwoYellas]

Well I certainly hope movements such as the Greens do well otherwise I heard bacteria and beetles will thrive from climate catastrophe, humans beans not so good.

 

[deltic]

In recent years their politics has been dominated by trans issues. I can't remember where I read it but someone mentioned if they spend as much time on Green Issues than they do on Trans issues they would be in a much better position.

Until Jonathan Bartley came into the role of party co leader the party was dominated by women which in my mind put men off. Female leaders are great but when all the best known members are all women it kind of puts men off in the same way that if all the big names in the Conservative Party were men it would put women off.

I find it disappointing that you feel that an all women leadership team would put men off voting for them. In reality I doubt many people would know who their leaders are.

I agree that if they concentrated on core environmental issues they would attract far more support. Both from younger voters and traditional rural conservatives.

I feel they have gone for ideological purity rather than looking at the art of the possible and actually being in a position to achieve something.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are too many in the Green party who are hard left to be palatable to those who are left of centre and not keen on extremist ideologies.

This is my sense too. I see protecting the environment as one of the most important issues facing humanity (Personally, I'd rate the environment, and the battle between democracy and authoritarianism as the two equally important crucial issues the World faces), and I'd have been quite happy to support a Green party that prioritised policies to protect the environment, but without mixing them up with anti-capitalism, extreme identity politics and other left-wing ideologies, etc., and which also approached things from a rational, scientific, perspective (accepting for example that for at least another few decades, nuclear power will be an essential part of any low-carbon economy). I can understand that a party aspiring to form a Government can't stay as a single-issue party: It has to formulate policies and some kind of coherent philosophical approach to all the other issues a Government faces, but what we've got from the Greens seems to just be dangerous left-wing twaddle of the kind that you wouldn't want anywhere near the corridors of power.

Having said that, it is our electoral system that has really screwed the Greens over.

 

[windingroad]

I'd have been quite happy to support a Green party that prioritised policies to protect the environment, but without mixing them up with anti-capitalism, extreme identity politics and other left-wing ideologies, etc.

The problem with this is that it's undeniable that capitalism is one of the main drivers of environmental destruction. It certainly doesn't hold the monopoly on that, but by definition other political systems do so less, because they don't rely on (and encourage) overconsumption to the same extent. Whether or not you reach the same conclusion, I can definitely see a rational argument against capitalism in its current form if environmentalism is your main focus.

On the identity politics point, what would you define as "extreme"? That's a genuine question as I'm not aware what is or isn't in their manifesto.

 

[TwoYellas]

This is my sense too. I see protecting the environment as one of the most important issues facing humanity (Personally, I'd rate the environment, and the battle between democracy and authoritarianism as the two equally important crucial issues the World faces), and I'd have been quite happy to support a Green party that prioritised policies to protect the environment, but without mixing them up with anti-capitalism, extreme identity politics and other left-wing ideologies, etc.,

The identity politics, woke, culture wars etc are over played by the cynical right. It's divide and rule and used as a tool to deflect from their own failures.

There's a school of thought that the culture wars are going to be disproportionately talked about by the right wing in the build up to the next election. It's all propaganda.

The problem with this is that it's undeniable that capitalism is one of the main drivers of environmental destruction

Agreed, it's not sustainable. But something that the hard right propagandists (aided by their off shore, tax dodging media baron mates) manage to persuade people is that they should watch out for these deluded left wing anti-capitalists.

But what they won't tell people is the whole story, that it's a form of capitalism for ordinary people (who go under if they don't cut it) but nice socialism for the banks and financial institutions that are bailed out by taxpayers. So in effect persuade folk to attack leftists and rail against socialism for themselves which the rich enjoy. A very clever con trick in my view.

 

[brad465]

The current voting system is the main issue stopping the Greens having any major influence (although in some local elections they've fared relatively well). I think though a good model to look at would be the German Greens, who have some classic Green party policies while being more moderate overall, which will have gone a long way to them being a major partner in the current coalition in Germany. But at the same time, they've been helped by a voting system that is more proportional than ours.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem with this is that it's undeniable that capitalism is one of the main drivers of environmental destruction. It certainly doesn't hold the monopoly on that, but by definition other political systems do so less, because they don't rely on (and encourage) overconsumption to the same extent.

I disagree. And the obvious evidence is that socialist economies, in their day, caused far more environmental destruction relative to the amount of wealth they generated. The drivers of environmental destruction are not capitalism per se, but that we unfortunately have rules and a tax system that means people who cause environmental destruction usually don't pay the cost of it, and are often even rewarded via direct or indirect/hidden subsidies. And in some more countries - particularly some authoritarian ones - that's often compounded by Governments that don't particularly care about environmental destruction anyway.

The classic example is driving or flying: Why do people choose to do those things so much? Answer: Because when you drive or fly, you don't pay the cost of the damage you're causing: It's other people who indirectly pay for it (by putting up with the noise, breathing the polluted air, etc.). Capitalism works fine if the rules are set up so that when you choose to manufacture (or to consume) something, you pay the full cost of manufacturing/consuming it. To the extent that people who cause pollution don't have to pay for it, that's actually a distortion of the market, and so runs against how capitalism ought to be functioning. The solution is to ensure (via regulation/taxes/etc.) that people who cause environmental destruction always pay the full costs of that destruction - if that were done, while still keeping our market/capitalist economic framework, then you'd very quickly see a move towards cleaner technologies - because companies would quickly see that that using technologies that protect the environment is now where the biggest profits are to be had (And I realise all that's easier said than done - there are an awful lot of vested interests that need to be tackled to do make those changes).

To my mind, the irony with blaming pollution/etc. on capitalism per se is that the only way we are going to be able to solve and reverse the climate change and environmental destruction that's taking place is through the very technological innovation that comes from capitalism - so if you try to abolish capitalism, then you are abolishing the only way that we are ever realistically going to be able to eventually fix climate change and biodiversity loss etc. Look for example at all of the (capitalist) renewable energy companies that are investing money in innovating to try to develop clean energy sources.

I'll try to answer your question about identity politics in a separate post.

 

[Falcon1200]

The opposition to HS2 is largely based upon the fact that it isn't really transport for all, but rather transport for the few. There's a good argument that it could make more sense to use the money spent on HS2 on local railway lines instead, especially to combat rural exclusion.

Which shows, if that is what the Green Party really believes, that they do not have the first clue about the purpose of HS2; By removing limited or non-stop services existing routes will benefit from the capacity released, for both stopping passenger trains and freight. And that, along with other things such as their previously-mentioned opposition to nuclear power, and some of the nutcases representing them in Scotland, is why I will not vote for them.

 

[gingerheid]

When they become a crazy extremist (and sometimes pseudo anarchist) party rather than an environmental party.

In general terms a time when Extinction Rebellion are bringing environmental campaigning into disrepute might be a difficult time to be a green party, but in this particular instance they do genuinely seem to be increasingly cut from the same cloth. They say they're for public transport, but it seems that any time it comes to the crunch they oppose it on nimby grounds (not just HS2; EWR and guided busways as well).

 

[windingroad]

I disagree. And the obvious evidence is that socialist economies, in their day, caused far more environmental destruction relative to the amount of wealth they generated.

How are you defining environmental destruction, and have you adjusted for things like asynchronous industrialisation?

Most (if not all) socialist states were developing countries which were going through their industrial revolutions later than we did, which means a lot of front-loaded pollution. It's the same principle which makes it rather unfair to expect developing countries today to abandon things like fossil fuels when advanced economies spent a very long time reaping the benefits and exporting the costs.

Assessing environmental destruction relative to wealth generated is also a odd way to look at it, as you're essentially judging a socialist economy in capitalistic terms, which makes no sense. The primary goal of socialist economies isn't to accrue profit or wealth, whereas that is the primary goal of a capitalist one. It would be more sensible to use population size and then adjust the result based on how far through industrialisation the countries you're comparing are.

Realistically that's probably impossible to do given the near-infinite number of different data points, and the difficulty in defining who "owns" elements of environmental destruction: consumers, or producers, and to what extent? Having said that, capitalism as a generalised system does require constant overconsumption by definition, which socialism does not.

I'm not necessarily a socialist, for the record: I'm just not particularly wedded to capitalism, and I'm open to alternative ideas.

The drivers of environmental destruction are not capitalism per se, but that we unfortunately have rules and a tax system that means people who cause environmental destruction usually don't pay the cost of it, and are often even rewarded via direct or indirect/hidden subsidies.

I agree with this!

Capitalism works fine if the rules are set up so that when you choose to manufacture (or to consume) something, you pay the full cost of manufacturing/consuming it. To the extent that people who cause pollution don't have to pay for it, that's actually a distortion of the market, and so runs against how capitalism ought to be functioning. The solution is to ensure (via regulation/taxes/etc) that people who cause environmental destruction always pay the full costs of that destruction - if that were done, while still keeping our market/capitalist economic framework, then you'd very quickly see a move towards cleaner technologies - because companies would quickly see that that using technologies that protect the environment is now where the biggest profits are to be had (And I realise all that's easier said than done - there are an awful lot of vested interests that need to be tackled to do make those changes).

And I mostly agree with this, although I think there's a fundamental contradiction in the way you advocate for markets free of "distortion" but then also advocate for regulation. Things like microplastics in our oceans or the destruction of rainforests (and thousands of other examples) don't have any inherent monetary cost, which means there's no incentive for companies to do anything about them in a pure market economy. They certainly have a moral/ethical/social cost, but those are the things capitalism handles poorly, which is why regulation is necessary. We probably agree on that, but I think it's important to acknowledge that state intervention is a fact of life, and a good thing in this context.

To my mind, the irony with blaming pollution/etc. on capitalism per se is that the only way we are going to be able to solve and reverse the climate change and environmental destruction that's taking place is through the very technological innovation that comes from capitalism - so if you try to abolish capitalism, then you are abolishing the only way that we are ever realistically going to be able to eventually fix climate change and biodiversity loss etc.

This I disagree with. Capitalism incentivises a very specific subset of innovation: products or solutions which can be sold for a profit in the short-term. It is very bad at incentivising innovation for things that aren't profit making, but would be a social good, particularly if it requires decades of funding with no guarantee of monetisation or success. That's why there's so much state funding in all sorts of scientific research: capitalism isn't capable of fulfilling that role.

I'll try to answer your question about identity politics in a separate post.

I await with bated breath!

 

[nw1]

Their policy on immigration is completely contradictory. On one hand they appear to be wanting to save every piece of green belt land possible. Yet on the other...they appear to want little control over who comes into the country and are totally indifferent to the predictable rise in population levels.

Remember open immigration works both ways, it's not just about letting people in (which I don't have a problem with personally), it's about letting us out. Many of us might consider emigrating to another country if it was easier. Rather than blanket restrictions on immigration, an open immigration policy in which immigrants could not initially claim benefits (unless asylum seekers or EU nationals - 'grandfather rights') would likely prevent the problems some see.

Open immigration is a fundamental attitude of libertarianism in my view, and any libertarian party would support it, but the Greens are a bit mixed in terms of libertarianism as some members are against certain forms of transport in perhaps a rather excessive way. It's one thing wishing to avoid air as a mode of transport from London to Manchester, Glasgow or Paris; quite another thing to moralise about using air travel to reach southern or eastern Europe, Asia, the USA or even Ireland (the whole island), where it is often the only time-efficient option available.

So in summary, I'm pretty mixed in opinion on the Greens though have considerably more sympathy for them than, say, the Tories as at least they are well-meaning. A more moderate, carrot-based approach to environmentalism would be better (such as focusing on improving the rail and bus network, making public transport more affordable, and opposing attempts to reduce the rail or bus network), but on the other hand I support their immigration policies and have sympathies with their left-leaning politics, and would vote for them tactically were I to be a constituent of Brighton Pavilion.

 

[Acfb]

The GPEW are a weird beast and are doing pretty well in very unexpected places at a local level like on rural Suffolk and experienced some incredible victories in the North East back in May.

They do seem to have supplanted the LDs as the opposition to Labour in a lot of places like Bristol.

I was surprised at how poorly they did in London seats wise back in May though, I thought they'd do better against Labour in places like Lambeth.



The Scottish Greens are arguably more ideologically coherent but are now pretty much now subordinate to the SNP at Holyrood although they do have some better councillors.

 

[HullRailMan]

The problem with this is that it's undeniable that capitalism is one of the main drivers of environmental destruction. It certainly doesn't hold the monopoly on that, but by definition other political systems do so less, because they don't rely on (and encourage) overconsumption to the same extent. Whether or not you reach the same conclusion, I can definitely see a rational argument against capitalism in its current form if environmentalism is your main focus.

On the identity politics point, what would you define as "extreme"? That's a genuine question as I'm not aware what is or isn't in their manifesto.

Identity politics is, by design, divsive, so can be considered extreme in that sense. Some people feel the need to highlight what makes us different at the same time as questioning why society is becoming less cohesive. Perhaps the worse part of identity politics is the way some people seek to categorise people based on certain characteristics, as if everyone with that characteristic thinks or acts the same; think of the way the term ‘xxxx community’ if often used as a broad brush to describe minority groups, for example. While ever the Greens, and other left-wing parties, focus on these niche ‘identity‘ issues (eg trans) at the expense of more mainstream issues, they will struggle to gain broad appeal.