The Green Party is officially over. Zack Polanski is yesterday's chip wrappings. They, like Reform, are done and we can go back to politics as usual. Such as being captivated by the attempted putsch against Ed Davey. This is the verdict of a swathe of the political establishment following Labour's handy victory over the Greens in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. Needless to say, this is just not a credible position.
Looking at the vote, Labour's share more or less stood still - declining from 49% to 45%, whereas the Greens surged from 10% to 32%. Despite reports by politics Twitter personalities that Tories and Liberal Democrat voters were lending Labour their votes following the passing of the Zionism is Racism motion at last weekend's Green conference, their proportions were virtually static - indicating a marginal phenomenon, or an effort at attention-seeking. Determining which from which is up to you. Obviously, this result was helped by the decision of Andrew Feinstein, who came second in 2024, to not stand and endorse the Greens. But some might have expected the Greens to do better, seeing as they were standing their best known public figure.
The reason Polanski didn't doesn't require preternatural powers of divination. Simply, politics has changed. For many Green-leaning Labour voters, their party is on the right track again. Andy Burnham has set out a destination, and enough are convinced that he's sincere about getting there. The polls tell this tale as well. The dip in the Greens' fortunes coincide with Burnham's anointing as Keir Starmer's successor. And it doesn't require any more in-depth analysis than this. When Labour put themselves at odds with the interests and outlooks of its voter coalition, supporters look elsewhere. Commentators will riff off conference motions and Polanski's social media faux pas, but they're playing an establishment avoidance strategy - an effort to evade and not present the simple fact that left wing solutions to problems, even when they're wrapped in soft left clothing, are popular.
Image Credit
Thank you- for the sane analysis- again.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your analysis I would suggest that Zac's tenure as leader is coming to an end. Now that Chris and Laura and Robert and Pippa and Camilla and Beth et al have decided that he is the reincarnation of Corbyn his days are numbered. We can expect article after article into the distant future on his incapacity and incompetence. Oh, why can't he be more like St Andy and sound as though he is going to do something without actually doing anything of substance.
ReplyDeleteA fascinating by product of all this is the lack of analyis by the political reporters of whether zionism is racist. For them it is self evidently not and the idea is anti-semitic. And this is despite the actions of the zionists in power in Israel who commit genocide, expand their borders into Lebanon, Syria, the west Bank and eye parts of Jordan and Eygpt. I do wonder what term they would come up with to describe this behaviour. iisn't ethnic cleansing a form of racism?
Assuming that it is for the membership of the Green party to decide who their leader is, I suggest that he remains popular within the party, and will not be ousted because a bunch of reactionaries and centrists are having a strop.
DeleteSome Greens would agree the motion as passed was flawed and probably unhelpful to Zack's chances in H&SP. However, the majority, I surmise, are supportive of the position that Zionism, as it has been enacted in practice, is Racist. Any objective look at how the Palestinians, and the non-Jewish citizens of Isr**l are treated, reveal this view to be self-evident.
Fascinating how the ethno-nationalists in Reform can be criticised as racist by Labour and the Tories but the ethno-nationalist government in Israel and the political ideology that drives it cannot.
DeleteEvents, dear boy. Burnham is a clear ploy by centre-right Labour to humanise their right wing policies. External events are accumulating and all the runes read that while Burnham has permission to tinker at the margins, like Blair, the neoliberal mindset has gone nowhere, likewise the influence of Israel. The ghouls of fascism wait in the wings.
ReplyDeleteThe party's own MPs have started talking about "entryists", which is never a good sign.
ReplyDeleteZack shouldn't go anywhere; whatever the ultimate questions over his own character, he undeniably lit a fire under the Greens, and it would be a pure gift to Labour's neoliberal demons (and to the far right) if his party were to go backwards.
But the same forces which brought down Corbyn (and installed Starmer) are now focused upon whipping the upstart Green members into line. So everyone in the Party had better be on their toes.
I think the Greens do have an entryist problem, they were a party of middle class contrarians with an eco agenda, now they've imported a bunch of keffiyeh clad cosplaying culture warriors and ultra leftists who are reshaping the party around trendy causes and fantasy populist not-economic policies (loads more free stuff for the subsidised classes with someone else paying). It certainly grabbed attention in the vacuum that was Starmer, but even as light on substance as Burnham is, there's a chance he might cough up just enough to keep the subsidised classes from feeling their entitlements are under threat without spooking the net contributing classes and lenders who pay for it all. I also think the culture war stuff the Green entryists obsess over isn't quite such a priority to the broader public. The press might be just as obsessed with the culture war stuff, in their own way, but that's because batshit views have higher engagement value when selling papers and clicks.
ReplyDeleteOne moment of partial rationality and then @Kamo collapsed back to the default frothing right-wing contempt and slaggage. The shift is visible in the appearance of what it considers pejorative descriptives and labels. So we have "contrarian" (richly ironic given his lurking around a leftist blog),desire to dress "cosplaying" , "culture warriors", "ultra", "trendy", "fantasy" (suggestive of a secret penchant for LARPing), even "populist", presumably this last one suggests it considers itself a sort of sensible centrist, despite being hard right - odd how people perceive themselves.
DeleteWe have the compulsory "serious bank manager talking down to a silly teen" approach to pseudo-economics (Kamo, like many of its tribe being unfamiliar with the wide range of economic schools and various, often contradictory theories on macro) in which it imagines that the government has to budget like a household. "Free" stuff is code for "well off types like me will have to pay for it from the taxes we haven't managed to dodge". The concept that putting money into less well-off people's pockets means they spend it and it circulates, as opposed to their clique which "invest" in AI or US fossil fuel pillagers, being alien ( possible subject for its next LARP?).
The "lenders" pay it for it do they? How so? A gilt is repaid, and attracts interest, so...they will end up fine. In fact, the overall flow goes the other way, and provides a secure saving account for the wealthy. What you ought to ask is why the government pays interest or takes in their savings at all. Hint - not because it 'needs' the money to pay for anything. Why would it when the £ is entirely the creation of the state (via the BoE, and licensed banks) and it can simply create it as required.
"batshit" is a curious one. I wonder if kamo has ever encountered it. If it had, it might wonder why use that to describe something crazy. Frankly, human sh*t is much more grotestque and weird. Whatever, its another example of the style of throwing a lot of disparaging descriptives to paint a picture. A sort of "whats-the-pointillist" approach, as opposed to the romantic style favoured by this author.
The various explanatory statements by "senior" figures distancing themselves indicates that the more traditional Green approach of quiet disagreement and gentle persuasion is being challenged. The old approach had some benefits, but it failed to realise that it was tolerated only because it did not threaten the status quo. As soon as Greens began to actively and openly argue that the system was corrupt, unjust and structured to funnel wealth upwards, this tolerance evaporated to be replaced by concerted efforts to destroy the party. Sadly some of the old guard either haven't realised this, or are themselves in some way beholden to the existing struture, and so are looking to revert the party to what it was. This won't work, but it might disrupt and divide. Greens need to learn from Corbyn and remain united.
ReplyDelete@ Magersfontein Bazalgette why do you suppose the original Greens would want to remain united with entryists more concerned with culture wars and useful idiot preoccupations? Hard left entryists don't exactly have a good long-term track record. Either most of the entryists will move to hijack the next bandwagon or there will be some kind of split.
ReplyDeleteSimple, @Kamo, because I am one. I joined 40 plus years ago. I understand that society changes and "preoccupations" with it. These shifts in culture are gradual, with different sections of society moving at a different pace, and some resisting to the end. The young are generally in the vanguard, while the old are often the most reluctant - but obviously individuals vary. I, as an elder, am inspired by the enthusiasm and idealism of my younger colleagues. I understand their impatience with those that have allowed the crisises we face to build despite ample warning, and I sympathise. I also realise that dogged persistence against the odds, and knowing when to compromise while remaining true to the end goal, develop over time. Some will fall away, but some amongst them are the next generation of leaders and whatever I can do to help them, I will.
DeleteBravo, Monsieur Bazalgette! If Kamo does happen to be capable of learning, then it would do well to ponder your words.
DeleteBTW, as a rough framework for categorising cultural evolution, the "pace layers" model has much to recommend it, although of course - being as it is itself a product of ongoing cultural evolution - it's merely a starting point. We're presently at a very "interesting" moment of history where the future viability of civilisation may depend upon the faster layers being more stubborn than the slower layers; and we are overdue a proper reckoning with the question of exactly how and where the slower layers should be applied, in order to serve their purpose without becoming a deadly liability.
Unsurprisingly for a right wing troll tirelessly attempting to project its limited worldview as some kind of self-evident truth, Kamo appears to think that leftist positions in the so-called "culture war" - genocide and ethnic cleansing are bad, non-heteronormative people deserve rights, rapacious patriarchal crony-capitalism is bringing an apocalypse upon us, etc and so forth - are a fringe opinion, whilst disdain for these positions is mainstream.
ReplyDeleteFor the trend to be heading in the opposite direction seems far more plausible (otherwise Keir Starmer would still be in Number 10); and it's small wonder that ageing blowhards who get their opinions straight from the Telegraph are falling over themselves to project denial about it.
The "original Greens", who managed to achieve just one MP in a full quarter century of the major parties being about as palatable as AI-generated food, wouldn't be well advised to mimic the behaviour of Telegraph zombies. They should probably be taking note of the things which left-leaning youngsters care about - even if doing so attracts the raving ire of the genocidal Zionist lobby.
Book and blog referenced today (Sat) in Aditya Chakraborty’s piece in the Guardian. Can national recognition be far behind?
ReplyDeleteAnd here is the link in case anyone missed it.
Delete