The pre-conference period is a good time to start a discussion on the direction of the Green Party. I thought I'd better get myself in gear and start blogging a few of the thoughts I've been having about this. The first of these is about turning our isolated pockets of strength into a truly national party.
During the General Election the Greens pursued a highly targeted strategy, pouring resources into key areas, most notably Brighton Pavilion, in order to beat an electoral system designed to keep out minor parties like the Greens.
This meant that fully functioning branches up and down the country, and to a lesser extent the more modest enterprises had to make a disciplined sacrifice that it was in their long-term interests locally for the Party to break through into Parliament elsewhere.
That strategy was a roaring success and we have achieved the unachievable by gaining our first ever Member of Parliament. Already the Party has seen an unprecedented growth and now more than half our members joined only a few years ago. That's a real opportunity for renewal, especially as those new members are joining all over the country, not just in the target seats.
However, whilst this strategy was vindicated by the results it also came at a price, both electorally and, not least, in terms of resources and capacity building which has been focused on a very small number of places, all in the South East of England.
Members have been happy to pay this price because gaining that first MP, in the form of the excellent Caroline Lucas, promises to reap rewards across the country, boosting our profile and our credibility. It’s now time to shift gears and make sure that the party as a whole benefits from that success. That’s going to take a psychological leap because we’ve been so focused on those constituencies that an organisational inertia could well leave us with a strategy we designed for a very different time.
Our focus needs to move away from a small number of Parliamentary constituencies and towards building regions, both to win new council seats and to at least double the number of MEPs we have in 2014, something that was almost within our grasp at the last Euro elections. Winning an MEP in the South West and North West (the two regions where we were oh-so-close last time) means a change in focus and does not fit neatly with winning Norwich South and retaining Brighton Pavilion in 2015.
However, a focus on building regions could reap more rewards in terms of building party membership and creating a real geographical spread of our influence. More importantly if we continue to target a few areas it will become a self fulfilling prophecy where once we built the strongest areas we could find ourselves in the situation where other areas have been allowed to wither and die.
Last time round it wasn't just the Greens that were gutted that Peter Cranie was just 0.3% of the vote away from denying the BNP's Nick Griffin a seat in the House of Commons, next time we want a result where the left, the disaffected Lib Dems and progressive people are convinced that we're a real party on the ground and therefore worth voting for.
I for one am really pleased by the emphasis that Caroline Lucas has had as our first MP on trying to be the best constituency MP she can be and the hardest working Parliamentarian in the House. How she also finds time to speak at radical meetings and the like too goodness only knows - I only hope there isn't a GM cloning scandal waiting in the wings as an explanation!
It's only right that we build on the good work we've done already and try to keep her seat and win Norwich South for Adrian Ramsay - but it would be a disaster if we decided this meant five more years of targeting in the south. The Eastern region has many strong areas but it severely under-performed as a target region at the last Euros, and we should not adopt it as a target region again purely on the basis that it was last time - other regions performed far more strongly and they should be rewarded for that.
Combining building local parties (and winning new council seats) with a perspective of winning a seat in both the North West and South West in 2014 would take us on the road to becoming a truly national party, breaking out of our strongholds and our comfort zones.
We wont win these seats with a purely electoralist strategy, but if we don't have in mind how we're going to make significant advances in 2014 it won't serve our target Parliamentary seats at all well. Caroline's campaign team did the whole party a favour by winning in May, it's now time to allow the rest of the party, outside of the South-East, to return the favour.
Annie Leonard and co. (
Adrienne Mayor (
Ed Howker and Shiv Malik
Floella Benjamin (
Mark Watson (
Tim Jackson (
David Wilson (
Clive Lord (
Nickie Roberts
21 comments:
Hi Jim,
I for one really welcome this post. We should be thinking in terms of regions, rather than single constituencies.
However, whilst it is important not to forget our support in the North West and Yorkshire (who also performed surprisingly well at the Euros), it really is in the South East and South West regions that we can expect to out-perform Labour in PR elecions.
The importance of scoring a decisive victory over Labour in the South East, as part of a strategy of consolidating the progressive vote there, will mean big things for the party else where.
Without wanting to use too many examples from the Lib Dems, look at how their long-term South West home has always provided a retreat when times got tough, and allowed them to spring board elsewhere across the country. We Greens, must strive for similar, but across several regions.
In the North West, and even in Yorkshire, because of the tradition of organised labour in those regions, it will make it that much hard to ever position ourselves as the first choice vote for anti-Tory progressives. But, I do have the confidence in activists in those regions to find their space and to make that crucial leap forward in 2014.
However, there does exist the unique opportunity for the Greens to strike it out and become the first choice party for all progressives in the South East and South West.
Jim
Please explain the meaning of your graphic. Is it "life, but not as we know it", or the LibDem conference?
Weggis: I was thinking of us as all prawns in a game of chess.
Luke: I certainly think that we need to perform well in the euros in London and South East where we already have MEPs but I'm not sure why you're emphasising SW over NW when it was the NW that was within a fingernail of winning - they proved in practice that they should be a target region (as should SW in my opinion).
However - I think an undue emphasis on the SE could cause problems as we need to lean back and repair some of the harm our successful targetting strategy has caused to the party in the other regions.
We really can't afford to be a party of the SE and I think it's time we made the sacrifice as a show of gratitude for the sacrifice the other regions have made for us over the last few years.
I don't think the emphasis is undue.
Across the SW, SE and Eastern regions, Labour only has 10 MPs. Caroline Lucas is the only opposition MP in the whole of Kent, Surrey and Sussex.
The Labour vote in the SE and SW has proven to be incredibly flaky. Labou have been losing council seats, votes and MPs in the region since 2007.
However, as we saw in London and the North, Labour voters came out en masse to try and off-set the threat of a Tory Government. With Labour in opposition, we might see these voters come out more often for Labour (including the Euros).
I certainly think the North West should be a target region, and far more resources need to go there but, we have the opportunity in the South East to displace not only Labour again but, also the Lib Dems.
The South-East needs to step up as well. Our support in the region is not reflected in Green council seats. We have no seats in Kent, none in Hampshire and only 1 in Surrey. So we really have to step between now and 2014 to add to our council seats. Unless we do this, and can prove to the party that our appeal goes beyond Brighton, then the attention I believe we should be paid, shouldn't.
Obviously I'm not arguing we shouldn't run good campaigns or try to take on the base of other parties - but those arguments apply everywhere.
At the last Euro election the various regions proved concretely which ones were best placed to gain a new MEP. Here are the stats on what % gain each region needed to gain one more MEP than it had already;
NW 0.3%
SW 0.8%
East 1.1%
SE 2.6% (1 MEP already)
Lon 9.5% (1 MEP already)
We need to net nine times as many voters in the SE to make the same gain as in the NW - *plus* concentrating on the NW taps into party members that we did not fully utilise during our Parliamentary targeting period.
Now it's possible that we could make a bigger gain than two new MEPs but what's clear is that in the two areas where we have MEPs already holding the London one will be hard (because labour's base is far stronger here and we risk losing it if we don't commit to retain Jean) and gaining one in the SE is a far more difficult task than breaking through with new representation in SW, NW and even Eastern. Those break throughs would have an enormous impact on the party in those regions compared to a new MEP in the SE.
I think the party will revolt if SE actually argue that they need more resources to gain 2 MEPs when NW does not have one and is far, far closer to gaining one.
We aren't going to target everywhere and I would argue it is important to make sure we share the love across the country - otherwise we risk becoming a party of the middle-class south, which would not be worth being a member of.
As a relative newcomer to the Green party (joined last summer and stood as a target ward candidate in Highbury West in the May elections)I feel unqualified to comment on the "where" in terms of resource allocation (although "sharing the love" strategically sounds pretty sane.
I'm interested in the challenge of ensuring we have effective, active branches across the country.
At branch level, it is easy to end up relying on a few active folk, while forgetting about how to engage new people and make it easy for people to get involved and make a contribution of time, expertise or even money. I may just not be in the right communications loop, but I'd welcome discussion about what makes an effective branch and how best to campaign locally to support future electoral success.
I'd like to thank Jim for this thread, which is sensible and raises the clear need for a national political strategy.
I won't be our lead candidate next time but whoever is leading that list in the NW in 2014 will have a credibility headstart.
When we met the BBC in early 2009, they simply were not convinced we were credible challengers for the seat. Our press team actually did some excellent work getting us in the Indy and other coverage.
In 2014 there is a simple and credible message that if you vote Green you can get rid of Griffin. We needed less than 5000 extra votes (Lib Dems would have needed about 30,000 and Labour closer to 60,000 to have the same effect).
What we need now to achieve success is a national commitment to back us as a target region, with financial resources we can plan around. It will be up to elections committee to decide what criteria they set for target regions, but I can't imagine that the NW can be far away from meeting nearly all the conditions.
We have recruited scores more members in the South West in the last couple of years including in Areas where we have not polled well so I am optimistic if we run a good campaign we can get in in the South West next time round.
It won't take a huge upwards shift in our votes to send a good team to Brussels next time.
Jim, please withdraw/correct your factually-false claim about 'Eastern Region severely under-performing at the last Euros'. In fact, the percentage gain in Eastern at the last Euros (3.2%) was the highest in the country, except for in SE. I.e. Eastern OVER-performed at the last Euros. [SouthWest only got closer to taking a seat because they overtook Labour.]
RG Nick: yes, that's a pattern that's being seen all over, which is great. I think it vindicates the idea that our first MP helps areas everywhere not just where they are elected.
Rupert: First of all I'll repeat the fact that the NW was 0.3% away from gaining an MEP and the SW just 0.8% away despite not being target regions. As the two regions closest to gaining new MEPs I think it makes sense to make them target regions over areas that were further away, like the Eastern region.
Secondly there are many ways you can measure improvement but a number of regions made significant improvement in their results, most did not have the benefit of being a target region.
I think it is important that we ensure that those areas who were closest to winning a new MEP are given priority over areas that were further away but happen to be in the South East of the country.
That might be painful to hear - but the numbers speak for themselves. If the Eastern region, whose results fell far short of the claims made for it prior to the election (I remember you talking about the possibility of winning 2 MEPs in the region for example), were to be a target region over the NW and SW next time it would widely seen as favouritism rather than good electoral sense.
Jim, you have not responded to the key fact I pointed out.
Eastern's vote went up hugely; more than in ANY OTHER REGION except for SE.
Please answer the point, and please withdraw your dangerous and misleading commentary.
As I have pointed out: the Eastern result was exceptionally good. We gained more votes than any other Region except SE. Our vote went up by 55000. If we had been lucky enough to overtake Labour; or if the vote-breakdown between UKIP and the Tories had been biassed by 30,000 votes in either direction, then we would have won.
The claim we made before the election was that we were within spitting distance of winning. This was true; and we probably would have won had the LibDems not lied systematically about our chances (see http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/17/those-fibdems/ ).
If you are saying that I said in public that we were in the running to win two seats, then you are saying something false, btw.
Eastern is very very strong as a Region and has a very good claim to be a target Region once again. (And hopefully, this time, being a target Region will mean a lot more than it did last time, and add more to results, as a consequence.)
The facts of the matter are that Eastern is in certain clear respects the strongest (or at least second or third strongest) Region in the country now. We have the most Councillors of all, we have the largest number of Principal Authorities on which we have Councillors, we have one of the largest of all memberships of any Region - and our Euro-result was stunningly good - better in terms of vote gain than any Region save for Caroline's own SE...
Sorry to have to have laboured all this, but I really resent the desperately-unhelpful things that you have said here about Eastern.
I think it was very unwise of you to do so in public, on a blog. We should be discussing where we target in private, not in public. But given that you wrote what you did, I couldn't stay quiet and see you dissing my Region (which until recently was your Region, too, I seem to recall.).
Rupert, I think I have responded to that question - but I'll do so again to be helpful.
There are a number of ways of measuring whether a region under performed. I think the combination of the massive over hyping of what the Eastern result would be and the fact that the NW and SW were far closer to gaining a new MEP make my comment that the East underperformed a reasonable one.
Incidentally I think you're blowing the word underperformed out of proportion making it sound as if I said the region did badly, moved backwards or whatever. As far as I'm concerned the word means that the performance was not as strong as it should have been.
On winning two seats you say "If you are saying that I said in public that we were in the running to win two seats, then you are saying something false, btw." But of course I didn't say anything of the sort.
On whether the Eastern region is strong or not - I've never said it wasn't. In fact in Suffolk particularly we're doing impressive stuff, Norwich is of course doing very well and Cambridge's election result was excellent - to name but three examples of many. But of course you're making out I'm saying something that I'm not.
I've made two specific points, neither of which have you convinced me to change my mind on:
a) the Eastern region under performed in 2009 and
b) the party needs to pursue a strategy that turns it into a truly national party, that means committing to two 'new' regions where we were closest to winning a new MEP by helping them build their local party presence.
It is an objective fact that if the party had put a small amount of extra resources into the NW at the last election we would have had an extra MEP and the BNP would have had one less - that is hindsight and what is done is done but we can use those facts to inform our future strategy.
Jim Jepps said: "On winning two seats you say "If you are saying that I said in public that we were in the running to win two seats, then you are saying something false, btw." But of course I didn't say anything of the sort."
What Jim Jepps said: "I remember you talking about the possibility of winning 2 MEPs in the region for example"
So either Jim is lying about the fact that Rupert said Eastern could win 2 seats at all, or he is repeating something Rupert said in private, in a public forum.
Not sure which is worse.
Well I don't lie greenpolitico (although I'm perfectly capable of getting things wrong), and I should point out that there is private and private, we're not talking about confidential meetings here... but I shall try to take your moral opprobrium on the chin - perhaps your priest can answer your ethical conundrum for you.
By the way - what's your real name?
greenpolitico is right. I said in private that we had an outside chance of two seats - at a time when we were ahead of the Libdems in the national polls, and were looking at possibly winning seats in almost every Region (as UKIP do, and they win two seats in some). For you to cite that private remark as evidence that Eastern 'under-performed', Jim, is utterly risible. It's pathetic. It just doesn't compute.
Frankly, what you are saying here about Eastern is laughably false, and beneath contempt. I won't say more about it, except that you have let yourself down badly here, and it won't soon be forgotten.
And I repeat that it is really disgraceful that you are doing this in public, on a blog. I know that some senior Party figures agree with me in that judgement. If you are really are the Greens' top blogger, then you should know better.
Rupert, you were consistently bigging up the Green's chances. On your blog you have posts talking about eight or nine MEPs nationally on the week of the election, for example.
You've now sent a whole number of posts to this blog, not to mention your emails, vociferously responding to my remark that I thought the East under-performed as if this sentence equals the end of the world and that the remark means that the Eastern region is shit.
I find your disproportionate and hyberbolic response to this comment risible.
If 'senior party figures' (snigger) agree with you, let them speak to me. Perhaps while you are at it you could tell your dad on me, who, I have it on good authority, is bigger than my dad. I can assure you I'd be happy to have a discussion with each and every one of those figures that you conjure up.
I think this is a very good post, Jim. Regional strength is absolutely crucial for the Euros. And while we could take an MEP in Eastern next time, our strength there (as in a lot of regions) seems to be quite concentrated, and if we have a greater spread of influence elsewhere, then they would seem to be the best regions to send additional resources to. Unfortunately I'm not a Green Party constiutional expert, but are coalitions still prevented under Party rules? If so we need to change that ASAP, and I think you've made that point previously, Jim. A coalition with Mebyon Kernow in the SW could be enough to give us a (joint Mebyon-Green)seat with a slight increase in our vote in 2014, while an alliance with Plaid Cymru in Wales for the Euros (and also, really, all other elections where we have common ground) would be worthwhile.
I do however have worries about our chances of building a base in parts of London though. The pursuit of a full slate strategy was a mistake I think. We would have been better spending the £500 we committed to constituency deposits on a decent council election campaign in a few council seats per constituency, and then using that as a launching pad to build up a local base for the Party. Standing in constituencies where we secured a few hundred votes doesn't translate into a real base of any sort. I stood as a paper candidate in my council ward and took only a couple of hundred votes less than our GE candidate took across the whole constituency. That is no fault of the candidate, but simply evidence that putting a name on a ballot for £500 and then doing no campaigning seems like a waste, whereas £500 spent at council level might have put us in a good position regarding future campaigning and may well have paid off at future election cycles.
And Rupert, I'm very pleased that Jim frequently posts interesting and important issues that need discussing on his blog. I think that given that some Party members were actually talking/blogging publicly that we were going to do better than 1989 or take almost as many seats as the Greens in Germany, while in the end we achieved neither of these things, means we need a postmortem of sorts and to be realistic about our future chances. It certainly all computes for me.
I think this is a very good post, Jim. Regional strength is absolutely crucial for the Euros. And while we could take an MEP in Eastern next time, our strength there (as in a lot of regions) seems to be quite concentrated, and if we have a greater spread of influence elsewhere, then they would seem to be the best regions to send additional resources to. Unfortunately I'm not a Green Party constiutional expert, but are coalitions still prevented under Party rules? If so we need to change that ASAP, and I think you've made that point previously, Jim. A coalition with Mebyon Kernow in the SW could be enough to give us a (joint Mebyon-Green)seat with a slight increase in our vote in 2014, while an alliance with Plaid Cymru in Wales for the Euros (and also, really, all other elections where we have common ground) would be worthwhile.
I do however have worries about our chances of building a base in parts of London though. The pursuit of a full slate strategy was a mistake I think. We would have been better spending the £500 we committed to constituency deposits on a decent council election campaign in a few council seats per constituency, and then using that as a launching pad to build up a local base for the Party. Standing in constituencies where we secured a few hundred votes doesn't translate into a real base of any sort. I stood as a paper candidate in my council ward and took only a couple of hundred votes less than our GE candidate took across the whole constituency. That is no fault of the candidate, but simply evidence that putting a name on a ballot for £500 and then doing no campaigning seems like a waste, whereas £500 spent at council level might have put us in a good position regarding future campaigning and may well have paid off at future election cycles.
And Rupert, I'm very pleased that Jim frequently posts interesting and important issues that need discussing on his blog. I think that given that some Party members were actually talking/blogging publicly that we were going to do better than 1989 or take almost as many seats as the Greens in Germany, while in the end we achieved neither of these things, means we need a postmortem of sorts and to be realistic about our future chances. It certainly all computes for me.
Rupert,
No offence, but given your frequent (and correct) championing of free discussion in the blogosphere over the last two years, it seems a bit odd to castigate Jim for doing just that -regardless of whether you agree with his argument or not.
matt
Post a Comment