Caroline Lucas’s National Government and the Green Party’s Slow Move Away from Progressive Politics



In the 2015 general election, the Green Party represented the progressive left. While Ed Miliband was buckling under the pressure from his right-wing colleagues, the Green’s unapologetically championed public ownership, fairer taxes and more.

Sadly, in 2019, the situation is rather different. Today the Green Party talks less about public ownership and instead is spending most of its time using, together with the Liberal Democrats, a Brexit stick to bash Jeremy Corbyn and Labour – a leader and party that is, more than ever before, in tune with Green Party values.  

Of course, the Green Party is free to criticise Labour, and just because they do so doesn’t mean they’re no longer progressives – Labour still holds regressive positions which deserve to be pointed out, e.g. its conservative approach to drug reform. Moreover, campaigning heavily to revoke the 2016 referendum isn’t itself anti-progressive, especially considering the no-deal Brexit we’re potentially facing.

The problem is that the Green Party had an opportunity in 2015, after its somewhat successful election result and then the election of Jeremy Corbyn, to fight harder for the progressive politics it championed – a fight which had, for the first time in a long time, a reasonable chance of success. Instead, the Green Party has decided to side with the Liberal Democrats and their pro-austerity, pro-fracking leadership. The 2019 EU election was a prime example of this, with the Green Party predominantly targeting the Labour Party over and against targeting the Liberal Democrats. In other words, instead of building on their impressive work during the 2010-2015 period, which helped pave the way for Jeremy Corbyn and his politics, the Green party decided to perform an about-face and work against their legacy.

Let me reiterate; the Green party was well within its rights to attack Labour during the EU election, for example. Indeed, Labour’s Brexit position at the time was woeful. However, the question remains as to why the Green party didn’t also focus its attention on the Liberal Democrats whose actions in the coalition government helped create the context which ended up tipping the scales in Leave’s favour. Why, in other words, is the Green party trying to split the progressive vote?

The Green Party’s depressing turn away from progressive politics and allies has found new expression in Caroline Lucas’s proposal for an all-female national unity government. There are three principal issues with this proposal. First, all the women included in this make-believe government are white. Diane Abbot, for instance, is not chosen to represent Labour in this government. Instead, Lucas believes that Yvette Cooper is a better choice. Why? Lucas suggests Cooper is better placed because the women she has chosen were chosen because they hold positions of leadership within their respective parties. But what leadership position does Yvette Cooper hold? She is a backbencher of moderate ability whereas Dianne Abbot is the shadow Home Secretary. Second, the idea that women, regardless of their background and other factors, are going to be able to get us out of this Brexit mess, relies on an essentialist understanding of gender and sex which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Though, it's true that women, as a demographic, will be most affected by the economic costs of a no-deal Brexit. Women's voices are, therefore, vital in this debate; the point, however, is about giving voice to women's experiences without essentializing those experiences at the same time. Third, many of the women selected – for instance, Jo Swinson and Justine Greening – have histories of supporting regressive policies, policies which hurt women most, and which should be unpalatable to a progressive Green politician. 

The problem is that for progressively minded voters Lucas’s article raises several questions. Why isn’t Lucas trying to work with the Labour leadership on Brexit considering Labour has now come out in support of a second referendum and is, moreover, championing causes close to the Green Party’s heart (cf. Labour’s Green New Deal and Green Industrial Revolution)? Why is Lucas proposing a government which undermines party democracy and progressive alliances? The sad answer is that Lucas’s proposal is primarily a media stunt aimed to win cheap votes.

And that is the core problem with the Green Party today: whereas before the Green Party would fight for positions it claimed to believe in regardless of whether they were popular or not, they now prefer to jump on bandwagons in the name of easy votes.

In the end, and in contrast to their work during the 2010-2015 period, the Green Party’s actions in recent years, evidenced again today, has only divided progressives, helped regressive parties’ like the Liberal Democrats reclaim their brand image through association, and, ultimately, made a radical progressive government harder to achieve.  

Jack Lewis Graham

Link to Caroline Lucas’s article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/11/cabinet-women-no-deal-brexit-caroline-lucas

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jon P. Mitchell, Geertz and Asad: Shared Ontology, Different Emphasis

Ever since Talal Asad penned his critique of Clifford Geertz’s (1993) definition of religion, a consensus has developed that both scholars are operating within different ontological frameworks. Jon P. Mitchell (2017), in his chapter ‘Defining Religion: Geertz and Asad’, supports such a consensus. Mitchell contends that Geertz offers a universal and essentialist definition of religion, whereas Asad offers a contextualist and discursive theory of religion. However, these differences fall apart under analysis. While it is true that Geertz and Asad disagree on many points, such disagreements are primarily based on different emphasises and agendas, not different ontological paradigms.   In ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, Geertz defines religion as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [sic] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions of a general order
Read more

Gainesville Recovery City: Interviewing the best-known feminist cultural historian of the Recovery Movement

Gainesville Recovery City   An Interview with Professor Trysh Travis at the University of Florida Liam Metcalf-White   In June this year I travelled to the city of Gainesville, Florida, to carry out a small qualitative research project on religion, sexuality, and addiction recovery. The study was entitled  Examining Discourses of Religion and Secular among LGBT+ Men with Experiences of Addiction Recovery in Gainesville, Florida. During my time in Florida,  I had the privilege of interviewing Professor Trysh Travis at the Center for Gender, Sexualities and Women's Studies Research at the University of Florida.  She is internationally the best-known feminist cultural historian of the Recovery Movement. Can you talk me through the importance of examining addiction and recovery using the prisms of gender and sexuality? I part company with the 12-Step belief that gendered and sexualized oppression is an “outside issue.” We live in a culture characterized by the mi
Read more

Labour and Anti-Semitism: Balancing the Debate

Image
Entering the debate on Labour and anti-Semitism is always a fraught task. For obvious reasons, the debate is emotionally charged, with people often taking one of two inflexible positions. First, there are those who claim that Labour, since Corbyn’s leadership, and Corbyn himself, is anti-Semitic and anyone who denies this, or partially attempts to nuance the charge, are themselves complicit in anti-Semitism. Second, there are those who claim that most, if not all, arguments that Labour and Corbyn is anti-Semitic are lies – attempts to smear the Labour party and Corbyn to prevent Labour from attaining power. There is, however, a third position – situated in the middle of these two opposing camps. This group does not get a good hearing in the media, but – as is often the case with polarising debates – this middle camp usually has the most balanced perspective on the whole discussion. People of this third group claim that while there is small but consistent evidence of anti-Semitism wit
Read more