As of this week, I am no longer a member of Bridgend Green Party (although I remain a member of GPEW for the time being). This saddens me more than most people will credit. I have devoted a huge part of my life over the last four and a half years to getting the local party off the ground and established. A small but dedicated group of activists have helped us become a respected player in the local political scene and we have achieved a few things of note.

In 2012 we managed to put up the biggest slate of Green candidates in Wales outside of Cardiff, and Gareth Harris’ 24% was, I believe, the best result of any Green candidate at County Council level in Wales that year. We also saw Kathy Lewis returned as our first ever Community Councillor in Laleston and had a couple of other near misses.

Working closely with Plaid Cymru members in Bridgend, we helped establish Bridgend Against the Bedroom Tax, and when it merged to become part of South Wales Against the Bedroom Tax, Bridgend’s Kay Harris was its chair for a while. We have also played an active role in the anti-fracking movement (including trips to Balcombe, Barton Moss and Borras), the 20’s Plenty campaign, No To NATO and Stand Up to UKIP groups, among many others.

Our Elections Officer, John Evans, was commended by BCBC as one of the best organised and most efficient elections officers in the 2012 local elections. He went on to become the Wales ERO for a while.

We have been far from the ‘one man band’ some have attempted to portray us as. I am proud of the team we have built and what we have achieved. I thank them all for their unstinting support, energy and commitment. It has been fun and satisfying. Thank you.

For much of the last couple of years, however, we have been bemoaning the stagnation of both the local party and the Wales Party. So it is with no little irony that we find ourselves with the Bridgend Party in potential meltdown, just at the point where membership of both Bridgend and Wales Green Parties has sky rocketed in completely unprecedented and unexpected fashion.

So what has gone wrong? Why am I so disillusioned at the very point where I might more reasonably be expected to be full of optimism and joy?

I have had a fractious relationship with Wales Green Party Council for some time, particularly over their refusal to hold Pippa Bartolotti to account for a constant stream of misjudgements and gaffes, but it has only been in the last 12 months or so that things have been stretched to breaking point. The key issue has been our relationship as a party to Plaid Cymru.

This may well surprise many that know me well and/or have read my book, because I have consistently maintained that nationalism is second only to religion as a divisive force on this planet. I don’t want to go into the detail of these views now (I have done so repeatedly elsewhere) but save to say I would not have touched Plaid Cymru with a barge pole for most of the the 20+ years I have lived in Wales. Things started to change in 2011 when I read Leanne Wood’s Greenprint for the Valleys. Here was a new generation of Plaid Cymru politician speaking my language. I began to see the ecosocialist dimensions to the PC agenda, and learn about the Cynog Dafis era as well. When Leanne Wood became Leader of Plaid Cymru, in March 2012, it was immediately clear that PC was now a party we could and should work with, especially given their relative strength and electoral success.

It was around this time that I also started to take more note of Plaid Cymru in Bridgend and I was a delighted to accept an invitation to work with them on the Bedroom Tax campaign mentioned above. It confirmed that we have a huge amount in common and that they were actually pretty nice people. By the local elections later in 2012 we were talking informally about, for want of a better phrase, ‘keeping out of each other’s way’ as much as possible, and this contributed to us having a better and more successful campaign than we might otherwise have managed, with it being at our first attempt and all.

I started to try and feed some of this back into Wales Green Party, but was met with something close to hostility for even suggesting such a thing. Too many of the then Council members seemed to want to hark back to the somewhat acrimonious end to the previous attempt at an electoral pact in Ceredigion in the early 90s – rather than focussing on the fact that it had successfully led to the election of the UK’s first Green MP – sort of – with Cynog Dafis’ election on a joint Green / PC ticket. The ‘truth’ behind the demise of that successful relationship depends on who you talk to, which in itself points to likely fact that there was blame on both sides. But hey, this is a different era.

Despite this attitude from WGPC, I was beginning to hear other voices sharing my view that PC should be seen as our allies rather than our adversaries. This was coming from all directions – in no small part because of the obvious achievements of Greens and PC working together in Brussels and Westminster. I was getting encouragement for my standpoint from senior members of GPEW in England, even if it wasn’t forthcoming in Wales. I was getting encouragement from friends in PC as well. Far from all in PC have been kindly disposed to the Green Party, but the majority by far have been and continue to be so.

With no sign of WGPC changing personnel or opinions, I was encouraged to try and bring about change by challenging for the leadership of Wales Green Party at the end of 2013, especially after coming out on top in the Euro list poll. There were personal family reasons for not pursuing the leadership at that time, to which could be added political reasons for deciding to withdraw from the Euro list. It wasn’t until sometime after we had the Euro list poll that it emerged that Jill Evans was in serious danger of losing her MEP seat, primarily due to UKIP’s continued surge (ours was a pipe dream at this time). Given that, despite Bartolotti’s shameless spin (for which she was forced into public apologies), the Greens were never going to get remotely close to making a breakthrough, it seemed clear to me that for the sake of the Green/EFA group in Brussels, and in recognition that Jill Evans voting record on key issues was actually better than our own MEPs, we should withdraw. But with Bartolotti being number two on the list, that was never going to happen. I had to take a unilateral stance.

Again utterly shamelessly, not only did Bartolotti (legitimately) usurp the lead candidate position, but within 24 hrs of doing so she was attempting (with less legitimacy) to create a whole campaign team that was never on the table for me. WGPC and I had agreed, after my election, that it should be a low key campaign, to be used to simply engage with target wards for 2017. Despite Bartolotti’s best efforts, the Green Vote went down a bit (in line with nationwide trends) and Jill Evans scraped back in. There was widespread relief at this, as GPEW disappointingly only managed to add one more MEP, so losing Jill would have represented a zero net gain to the UK contingent in the Green/EFA group in Brussels.

We will never know how significant my move and the resultant publicity was in saving Jill’s seat in Brussels, but it was a close run thing and PC’s leading lights were duly appreciative of what I had done and were hoping it would signal a new era of closer links between PC and the Green Party. However, it was patently obvious to all concerned that this would not be likely with Bartolotti at the helm of WGP. I openly declared my intention to run against her at the end of 2014, in the absence of any other candidate, with plenty of encouragement from senior members of GPEW again. I was impressed with the mutual respect shown by Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett, and the clear desire of both to build on the constructive relationships witnessed in Brussels and Westminster.

However the campaigning period for the Wales leadership coincided with the Green Surge, precipitated, somewhat ironically, by David Cameron’s advocacy of the Greens going the TV debates and the independence referendum in Scotland, whereby the public showed a clear appetite for a new sort of politics. What should have been a source of joy became a source of consternation for me and the people that supported my ‘Work with PC’ platform.

What the surge did was flood the party with new members who were never likely to be sympathetic to calls for strategic withdrawals from parliamentary seats that PC could win. Given the choice between my rhetoric about the bigger picture and the need to act strategically for the greater good, and Bartolotti’s exaltations that we were on an irresistible roll to world domination, it was not surprising that I came a cropper. Any attempt I made to shine a light on her shortcomings were met by indignation that Greens don’t do ‘negative’ campaigning. I was stuffed.

I had sussed my fate a while before it was sealed and had decided to retreat back, licking my wounds, to focus back on my local party again. But within a matter of a few short days the pictures of Natalie Bennett with Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon were everywhere.

What emerged was a clear message that the three parties, despite their differences, were interested in an anti-austerity alliance, based around trying to optimise their collective strength in Westminster after the General Election. On a purely pragmatic level, if nothing else, this has to mean ensuring as many MPs are elected to this collective block as possible. In Wales, given that the Green Party’s realistic aspirations cannot extend much beyond saving a few deposits, it is therefore incumbent on the Wales Green Party, and its members, to put aside narrow, short-term whims (namely to have a Green candidate in very constituency) for the common good, if it is to be in any way supportive of the concept of an anti-austerity alliance.

So why hasn’t some leadership in this direction been shown? After all, there is no hiding GPEW’s position on this when you see and read the following on its website:

“The people of Wales face a real choice at the election…….
“If the people of Wales return a strong contingent of Plaid Cymru MPs in May, then Wales will be best placed to secure an outcome to improve the prospects of our people and communities.”

Let us be clear. This is not calling for Wales Green Party to capitulate. There is no reason for not standing in probably 34 out 40 constituencies. It is simply calling for a constructive attitude to alliance building for the common good. It would involve give and take over a longer timescale. However, the constitution of GPEW seems to be inhibiting Natalie Bennett from getting involved in the Wales situation. I have spoken with her recently and sense her great frustration with the situation, but she steadfastly insists (quite rightly no doubt) that it is for the members in Wales to resolve among themselves. Which means, of course, that given the attitudes prevailing in Wales Green Party, there simply is no prospect of an anti-austerity alliance in Wales. This was confirmed and reinforced by Bartolotti this very weekend:

Thus we have the bizarre and unfathomable situation in which the GPEW is very much in favour of working on an anti-austrity alliance with Plaid Cymru, but the party in Wales steadfastly rejects it and obstructs it. And to cap it all, from my perspective, it is me that is now being openly accused of being out of touch and damaging the party.

What these situations desperately need is leadership. If that cannot be applied from the top down, it is reliant on it emerging at the appropriate level. At the risk of being further accused of an unhealthy preoccupation with Bartolotti, it has long been recognised by many that she is driven by a craving for the spotlight and self-aggrandisement. Self-sacrifice does not come easy to the self-serving. Which means the only other hope of leadership on this issue has to come from within local parties.

Therein lies the next problem. It was not so long ago that outside of Cardiff and Bridgend there was barely a properly functioning local party in Wales. Swansea came perilously close to folding completely, Cardiff imploded after the huge disappointment of failing to get Jake Griffiths into the Welsh Assembly in 2011, and Gwent had to resort to attempting telephone conferences in order to stay alive as it activist numbers dwindled to being few and far between. This was pretty much the state of play 12 months ago, with barely 400 members to our name.

The transformation has been little short of astonishing. I am unsure of the current numbers, but I believe there are now something like 2000 members and maybe 10-12 constituted branches. Awesome! However, with the best will in the world, these people are ‘green’ in all sorts of ways. They are keen and enthusiastic and keen to do things right – I have helped some find their way with organising their party and negotiating the way the party does things like policy making. They have come from an impressive range of backgrounds, from political ‘virgins’ to serial party hoppers. Some are well briefed, others have little real idea, beyond the obvious, what the party stands for. We have passionate ecosocialists I have taken a shine to, and brash green capitalists that I have taken a dislike to. That is all fine and dandy.

What is not fine and dandy though, from my perspective, is the fact that all the enthusiasm they have brought in with them is being inappropriately channeled into thinking they can go out and sweep all before them. Yes, I understand they have joined the Green Party and not Plaid Cymru or any other party – but they need to be told that they are also joining what should be seen as one of the leading elements in an anti-austerity alliance that may require some self-sacrifice for the common good. Yes, I understand they want to put their cross next to a green candidate on a ballot paper wherever possible – but they need to be told that in an alliance situation, that sometimes means understanding that another party logo represents their choice occasionally. With the right leadership people understand this. It is hard to disagree with journalist and PC member Vicky Moller when she says:
“The [welsh] greens have been adamant about having candidates in every constituency. They are full of hubris at this point, seeing a heroic role for themselves and less worried about the immediate outcome than their glorious horizon. I feel it’s a maturity issue, like adolescents behind the steering wheel for the first time.”

The potential for alliances has been demonstrated in spectacular fashion by SYRIZA, which for those that don’t realise it, is a acronym of Greek words that translate as “the coalition of the radical left”. The situation in Greece is not the same as the situation here, but with continued austerity it will soon be much similar. The rise of SYRIZA was driven by utter despair. Would it not be wise for us to learn what is possible before we get to that desperation?

Let me share a history lesson from which we have much to learn. The parties that originally formed the Coalition of the Radical Left in January 2004 were:

• Synaspismós (SYN)
• The Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA)
• The Internationalist Workers Left (DEA)
• The Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA) (a splinter group of the Communist Party of Greece)
• Active Citizens (a political organisation associated with Manolis Glezos)
• Other independent left-wing groups or activists

In the election of that year, the coalition gathered 241,539 votes (3.3% of the total) but still managed to gain six members of parliament. All six were members of Synaspismós, the largest of the coalition parties. This led to much tension within the coalition.There followed some fairly turbulent years, with parties coming and going. In 2007, the ‘green’ party, Ecological Intervention, joined. The coalition held together and started to make real progress in the polls. But it was not until 2013 that it achieved sufficient strength and cohesion to become a unitary party, with the formal merger of the following disparate elements, who finally recognised that sectarianism had to be completely discarded for the sake of the people of Greece.
So in the summer of 2013, the following groups came together (along with their philosophies):

• Active Citizens (Ενεργοί Πολίτες): democratic socialism, patriotism
• Anticapitalist Political Group (ΑΠΟ): communism, trotskyism
• Citizens’ Association of Riga (Velestinli): patriotism, internationalism, ecology, social justice
• Communist Organization of Greece (KOE): maoism, communism
• Communist Platform of Syriza: Greek section of the International Marxist Tendency, communism, trotskyism
• Democratic Social Movement (DIKKI): left-wing nationalism, socialism, euroscepticism
• Ecosocialists of Greece: eco-socialism, Green politics
• Internationalist Workers’ Left (DEA): revolutionary socialism, communism, trotskyism
• Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA): communism
• New Fighter: democratic socialism, social democracy
• Radical Left Group Roza: Luxemburgism Radicals (Ριζοσπάστες): democratic socialism, patriotism
• Red (Κόκκινο): communism, trotskyism
• Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA): democratic socialism, eurocommunism, green politics
• Synaspismós (SYN): democratic socialism, eco-socialism, eurocommunism, environmentalism, feminism
• Union of the Democratic Centre (EDIK): radicalism, social liberalism
• Unitary Movement: democratic socialism, social democracy
• And a number of independent leftist activists

After nine hard years achieving this, it was rewarded with immediate success, coming first in the Euro elections of 2014, and being swept to government in the snap election of last month.

What we are witnessing here in the UK is the early stages of trying to build a similar coalition of the radical left in the UK. None of the constituent parties in SYRIZA would have come close to participating in Government without the hard work of Tsipras and others to make the coalition work. That work had to include: diffusing sectarianism, focussing on the common ground, putting personalities and egos to one side, realising that making compromises is always a necessary ‘evil’ in getting to achieve anything.

It is vision I want to work towards with anyone who wants to listen. That currently appears to preclude working with the Green Party within Wales. I have failed to convince anyone of influence to my position and am now characterised as a disruptive and damaging influence. The membership has had its opportunity to choose a path and have chosen the one they are now well and truly on.

My options are limited. As willing as I am to work with and embrace Plaid Cymru as allies and partners, they are not the ideological fit that the Green Party is for me still. I do not intend to join PC. I feel as if I have done all I can in Wales for the time being. Remaining involved can only fuel division and acrimony. What is clear to me, though, is that I cannot be party to the possible ruination of historic possibilities in the General Election. If my battle to talk sense into Green Party members in Wales is lost, along with possibly a couple of PC seats, then the best I can do is to try to contribute to securing a gain for the anti-austerity block across the border in Bristol West, and maybe try to get down to Brighton Pavilion to help re-elect the person that inspired me to join the Green Party in the first place.

I have therefore taken the unusual step of asking for my membership to be reassigned to Bristol Green Party/South West Region. This is the only compromise I feel comfortable with at the moment.

It means I will be withdrawing all my involvement with Bridgend Green Party as of the AGM this Thursday. I sincerely hope some of the new influx feel able to take it on and will hopefully nurture it to future success. If and when the issues with the anti-austerity parties in Wales resolve themselves, then I may return.

But in the meantime I simply need a break from it all for a while – certainly until after the GE – to reflect on what do next. As I am facing redundancy shortly, this applies to my work life as well as politics. I am in no frame of mind to get embroiled in political wrangling anymore and I apologise, to those I respect, that I may have offended by being even more blunt than usual at times recently. That, more than anything else, tells me it is time to step back and move on.

Good luck everybody!!

Andy Chyba

Dear Mr Chyba

Thank you for your email regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States and the motion that was considered in Parliament on Thursday 15 January. Unfortunately I was not able to attend the sitting that day due to a long-standing obligation in my constituency. However, I can assure you that I was kept well-informed of the issues around the debate, and I have attached a link to the debate below for your attention.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150115/debtext/150115-0003.htm#15011570000001

I agree that greater Parliamentary scrutiny over TTIP should be a priority. We have seen in the past that UK public services are a particular priority for US investors. In 2009, for example, our higher education market was subject to several acquisitions by US companies; the for-profit company Apollo took over BPP in 2009.

The situation could potentially be worse than you have suggested, as for-profit companies who acquire certain public services can be eligible for public subsidies. To take higher education as an example, for-profit companies will be able to access public subsidies through the form of student support. This would be occurring at the same time as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills removing even more of the funding from our universities.

The negotiations have been criticised by a wide array of organisations and unions, mostly on the grounds that the move poses a threat to our public services. It is also disheartening to see that the deal is being negotiated entirely behind closed doors. The Government was recently asked about the TTIP in Parliament; I have attached a link below for you to see their response in full, but I would draw your attention to several quotes from the Minister that may be of interest to you:

“The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a top priority for the Government. It has the potential to be the largest bilateral trade agreement in history and to bring significant economic benefits…it demonstrates clear EU-US leadership on the trade agenda and a firm commitment to liberalisation and open markets…negotiations will be tough but we hope that a deal can be reached by early 2015.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131218/text/131218w0002.htm#1312196000137

The Minister was also pressed on what implications the deal would have for national sovereignty, and whether it would hamper the ability of the Government to act in the public interest with respect to our public services. The Minister replied:

“Negotiations for TTIP are at an early stage. As with any trade or investment agreement, the UK aims to promote the UK’s interests while ensuring that the UK Government is not prevented from acting in the public interest.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131218/text/131218w0002.htm#1312196000137

There was also a Backbench Business Debate on the subject of TTIP in Parliament recently, and I have attached a link to the debate for you to see in full, which I think may be of interest to you.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140225/debtext/140225-0002.htm#14022593000001

You will be able to see that the Minister partly blames the media for the lack of publicity TTIP had attracted up to that point. You will also be able to see that the Opposition broadly accepts the proposals that the Government has put forward around TTIP, but has said that more action is required in order to guarantee that small businesses will not lose out, and that there must be exceptions in place to ensure services such as health and education are not affected by loopholes like the example I gave above.

Unfortunately, the comment made by the Minister regarding negotiations between the EU and the US being at an early stage are the closest we have come to finding out anything about the negotiations, as no information about them is being publicly distributed. The Government have maintained that they will not reveal any further information about the negotiations they are holding while they are at that stage.

Thank you once again for your email. If you feel there is anything further I can do, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Madeleine

Madeleine Moon MP
Bridgend

House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
02072194417

47 Nolton Street
Bridgend
South Wales
CF31 3AA
01656 750002

From the BILGEWATCH blog:

The run up to the General Election risks being truly horrid. The standard of mainstream “debate” will likely continue a frenzied downward plunge, founded on premises which are provably false.

Perhaps 2015 will be a key year in breaking the hold of the ceaseless, skewed and ill-informed nonsense so often presented as “news” and “debate”. But for now, stand by for a deluge of bile, which social media and broader campaigning will not escape, by any stretch. I want to address a growing build up of nasty and prolonged spats between supporters of the Green and Labour parties. They’re badly spilling over into groups normally united on issues such as public services, anti racism etc. and can be a dispiriting time-sink.

Likely to alienate most who are sympathetic to both parties, these odysseys often spawn several hundred posts. They disproportionately revolve around such themes as “Yeah, but Brighton bins…yeah, but Iraq”. They keep strong adherence to the great imagined internet law of “Last Post Wins”. People aiming to calm things down risk a dose of “But s/he started it” from both sides.

How much purpose does it all serve? With everything else going on, do we really need 4 more months of it?

As a Green, I’ve had many battles, close up and personal, with the Labour party. Most of it probably a bit petty and long ago in the scheme of things, but still…

I also have many valued friends and comrades in the party, which doesn’t mean I have to think much of the modern organisation as a whole. I can be a tribalist, but am not aiming for that here. My default setting is left-pluralist.

I’d like to create a sense of circumspection, if not harmony (which would probably be unrealistic). I’m certainly not after rancour, and I hope Labour supporters will take this piece in the constructive spirit with which it is offered.

The Greens have had a pretty good time of late. Polling numbers are healthily up, membership has shot past that of UKIP and the LibDems.

Labour supporters are increasingly concerned, attack pieces have started to emerge. Sadiq Khan has been tasked with addressing the issue on an official basis. None of this has had much effect so far.

I hope Greens keep a cool head about our progress, pride comes before a fall. We spent a generation in the electoral basement after the high of the 1989 Euro elections, where we still won no seats, (Euros were First Past The Post in those days). None of our recent fortune adds up to much till we win more seats under FPTP. Let the UKIP zealots be alone in giddy delusions about “earthquakes” and sweeping into power.

I’d also ask Greens to remember that, no matter how shallow, stupid or nasty they consider Labour attacks, Greens have been attacking Labour for a long time. We’ve often revelled in it, so it would be a bit daft to act all affronted at some return fire.

So, here are some things I’d ask Labour supporters to consider:

1) Respect the intelligence of Green/Labour considerers.

They understand the system. aware that most votes don’t really count toward the final outcome. We all know Labour had 13 years to change this, and failed to. Is it wise to now go round using emotional blackmail and erroneous slogans, such as “Vote green, get blue” on the back of that failure? Such soundbites are not valid in the vast majority of constituencies. As for the marginals, have faith in people voting according to their judgement, taste and circumstance, and perhaps splitting their national and local votes. Polling in marginals shows Labour doing sufficiently better than on average, this backs up my case.

2) Don’t assume that Green votes would automatically be yours as a second preference.

Taking votes for granted, as if by some divine right, is arrogant, complacent and alienating. Such characteristics could be a big cause of Labour’s current difficulties. Where Labour have taken support for granted in the past, votes have drifted to the LibDems, even the BNP. Now some of them have gone to UKIP. In other cases, people just stopped voting, but turnout in May will probably be high.

This isn’t all about left or “social justice” territory, but quite a lot of it probably is. Labour have no monopoly on that territory, and there’s no reason why they should assume it. In fact, a lot of votes they lost to the Libdems in 2010 were on that territory.

3) If Labour lose, it wont be The Green’s fault.

For all the “Green Surge” hype, a nationwide vote of even 5% on the day will be quite impressive.

What % of that in marginals might have been Labours? How much energy might go into wringing that % out with negativity and spin? would that energy yield justifiable return or be better spent elsewhere?

Two or three seats for The Greens will be astonishing. Even one will be a score draw. Increase in support can be ephemeral. There is a lot of work to do to build on our increase in membership. The first actual victories are more likely to be seen in 2016 locals.

To really blame a Labour defeat on a short period of progress for a much smaller party would be a dismal admission of failure in itself.

People may invoke the 2000 USA Presidential election, but that’s a far more cronky system than even ours. The comparison is fatally flawed by the fact that Gore won anyway! Bush got in on a courthouse coup, possibly the most horrific piece of electoral dodginess in modern western history. Is that Ralph Nader’s fault? Blaming him is letting a rampantly criminal regime off the hook. Gore’s personal cowardice was key in not letting so many voters in Florida have their voice heard. Murdoch’s Fox and a host of other nasties played parts too. The start of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 911 covers all this excellently, if you want to go revisit the sorry episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf5iyZ6A-eI

There are a host of things more likely to prevent Miliband getting into number 10 than The Green Party. Hideous and patronising right-wing propaganda is near the top of the list, but perhaps people need to look nearer to home as well.

4) Ask yourself why Labour are struggling.

By this I mean “struggling to be consistently in a position likely to bring around an overall majority”.

With 5 years of opposition, 100s of MPs and MEPs, thousands of councillors and scores of thousands of activists, there should be considerably more to offer the public than “The Tories are awful. You have to vote for us. It’s the system”.

What’s the point in fighting on right-wing territory now occupied by 3 other parties? Labour not only look indistinct in this neo liberal mush, it’s insincere as far as most of their activists are concerned. Between the 2 main contenders, if Labour are seen as too similar to Tories, especially on economics, the risk is that people will go with the devil they know.

Instead, Labour can persuade many potential Green, LibDem and even UKIP voters with a program that re-engages their centre-left core. Miliband has looked best, and rattled the right most, when taking on the likes of the energy cartel. Don’t lose sleep about being attacked as “too left wing” by Murdoch rags, The Mail et al. It will happen anyway, so you may as well make it worthwhile.

Also ask yourself if it’s strategically wise to argue on 2 fronts by opening a left flank on Greens, who will counter with skill and energy. Labour have a longer, more powerful past, with more clangers to draw on in arguments. I’ll spare the detail, you can fill in the blanks.

By contrast, why should Greens single out Labour as the huge problem? We should (and do) attack the general right-wing consensus, based as it is around failed austerity, corruption, corporate rule, growing inequality and blaming those at the bottom for problems caused by those at the top. If Labour are too big a part of that, it’s their problem. They still have a chance to distance themselves from it, and I think they should.

————————————————-

I’m not a lunatic, I don’t want another half decade of festering, psychopathic tory corruption, masquerading as “government”. Yet, most people can vote Green without the slightest risk of brining that about, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

To recognise the realities of the system, and that “vote green get blue” can apply no further than outside Lab/Con marginals, is a sensible compromise position. Yes, UKIP mess up the traditional maths somewhat, but probably more to Labour’s favour overall. UKIP will probably do well in a lot of safe Labour seats while putting otherwise safe-ish Tory ones in peril.

A solid vote for firm ecological, anti austerity, social democratic politics outside of the Labour Party will firm up those causes within it.

Some people have talked about “vote swapping” between key and non key constituencies. Heavily relying on trust, maybe it will happen on a moderate scale. But on the whole, it’s unrealistic to even expect non-aggression. Still, many of us campaign together for years without party hats much on, doing the election thing now and again, and returning to generally good relations afterwards. I’ll try to be one of them, even if I don’t always succeed. Thus, we might at least spare non partisan campaigns from our bickering, and to aim for less overall aggression, more respectful attention to nuance, genuine analysis, good humour and an avoidance of crude strawmen, ad hominem attacks and the like.

Thanks for reading.

—————————————————-

Please share this, read my other stuff and follow if you thought it worthwhile. No offence is meant to anyone by this blog not addressing supporters of Left Unity, TUSC, any other left party, Plaid. SNP, etc, anarchists or the non aligned 🙂

It is a shame that the GPEW has not seen fit to issue a statement along these lines. I endorse it fully. Andy Chyba.

Speaking on behalf of the Greens/Europe Free Alliance MEP group at the European Parliament, this is a translation (by Green Left’s Nicole Haydock) of Michele Rivasi ‘s statement on the recent terrorist attacks in France.

“ One does not protect Human Rights by negating them; one cannot protect freedom with less freedom”

Mr President and dear colleagues,

My sympathy, our sympathy, goes to the 17 victims, artists and journalists, police officers, Jews , Christians, Atheists and Muslims, their families and their nearest and dearest.

My thoughts go to those millions of citizens in France, Europe and in the World who have expressed their sadness and support and who have reminded us again only yesterday that fear and hatred has not won.

And yet, following these terrorist attacks, when this huge awakening jolt in France and in Europe has taken place, we must be vigilant not to fall into a double trap:

The trap set by fanatics responsible for those dreadful terrorist attacks, but also the trap laid down by demagogues of all types who consider these recent events as a declaration of war against Islam in the rest of the planet. Just as we will not accept the idea of a war of civilisations, we will not accept either sickening conflations, such as those adopted by nationalists and those stoking the fire of a nationality identity crisis across Europe.

A second trap is also looming: that of seeing our freedom drowned under a new security arsenal invoked under the pretext of fighting against terrorism.

The “Patriot Act” voted on in the US in response to 11th September has led to the scandal of state sponsored illegal imprisonments and the CIA violating the rights of individuals to privacy. This has put in danger European citizens’ rights and freedoms too.

Let’s not fall into this trap: one does not protect Human Rights by negating them; one does not protect freedom with less freedom.

Let’s take action against the stigmatisation and discrimination towards the children of Europe because of their religion, their names and their origins or because of the neighbourhood they come from.

Let’s stop this spiralling downwards trend where failing our young people turns into despair for all of them and hatred and barbarism from a few of them.

And since we are preparing for a European investment plan, let’s use this opportunity to give priority to education, training and public services for those millions of young people.

Let’s give to the children of Europe “ More love and less hatred” as illustrated only a few days ago on the cover of Charlie Hebdo newspaper.

Tout est pardonee = All is forgiven

Dear Andy, Should the Prime Minister be allowed to sign up the UK to TTIP without MPs even having a say on what’s in it? That’s the current situation, but this Thursday, MPs will vote on a motion demanding proper input on the final agreement. That gives each of us 48 hours to push our MP to support it. [1] The TTIP trade deal between the EU and US will affect us all. It could give US corporations new powers to sue our government in secret courts, and could threaten further privatisation of public services. [2] It’s outrageous that the Prime Minister could sign us up without MPs even having a say on what’s in the deal. We don’t have long, but if thousands of us write to our MPs, they’ll see that we won’t accept a deal that rides roughshod over our democracy. Please can you take two minutes to email your MP and ask them to vote for a say on TTIP this Thursday, 15th January? [3] https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/ttip-uk-vote-2 Giving parliament the final say over whether the UK signs up to TTIP would force MPs to start taking some responsibility. They won’t want to put their names to something that could threaten our NHS and see big businesses holding the government to ransom. When you send your email, copies will also be sent to the people standing to be your MP at the next election. Your MP won’t want to be caught on the wrong side of the argument in front of their opponents! [4] https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/ttip-uk-vote-2 Together we’ve already done so much to fight this trade deal. 38 Degrees members have signed petitions, written to their MEPs and taken to the streets to tell the public about the deal. We’re having an impact – the more that people hear about TTIP, the less they like it! [5] But right now our Prime Minister says he wants to put “rocket boosters” under the deal. [6] We’ve got a real problem if he’s able to ignore everyone and sign us up without MPs having a say on what’s in the deal. So let’s turn up the pressure on MPs, and make sure they realise their voters expect them to take some responsibility for ensuring TTIP can’t be waved through. Please email your MP now: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/ttip-uk-vote-2 Thanks for being involved, Megan, Nat, Blanche and the 38 Degrees team PS: The debate this Thursday is a backbench business debate. It’s been put forward by Geraint Davies MP. While the vote won’t be legally binding, if all MPs support parliament having a final say on the deal, it will be harder for that right to be denied to us when negotiations for TTIP are over. PPS: TTIP is a far-reaching deal that won’t just affect our NHS. To read more about it click here: http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/HILARY_LONDON_FINAL_WEB.pdf http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/TTIP%20mythbuster,%20Sept%202014.pdf NOTES [1] BBC: Week ahead: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30777749 [2] Independent: What is TTIP? And six reasons why the answer should scare you: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html [3] Parliament: parliamentary business for Thursday 15 January 2015: http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/MainChamber/2015/1/15/events.html [4] When you send your email, it will be copied to the candidates that the 38 Degrees office team is aware of in your constituency. If none have been announced, your email will just go to your MP. These candidates, along with your MP, will then have your email address. If you know of candidates in your constituency that are not on the list, please email their details to ttipaction [5] 38 Degrees: Vince Cable: fix or scrap TTIP: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/petition-ttip 38 Degrees: TTIP: EU consultation: http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2014/07/10/ttip-eu-consultation/ 38 Degrees: TTIP: day of action: http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2014/09/02/ttip-day-of-action-2/ 38 Degrees: European day of action: http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2014/10/03/ttip-european-day-of-action/ [6] BBC: TTIP: Cameron pledges support for EU-US trade deal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30073357

I, Andy Chyba, am now going to use the principle of freedom of speech to embark on some heartfelt observations that will be far from universally accepted, and that some will choose to find offensive. Tough! But first, let me make clear that I too was shocked by the nature of this crime and the direct attack, on principles we hold dear, that it represented. Despite never having heard of any of the victims before, they and their magazine clearly represent an attitude to religion that I relate to. As such I do mourn their loss and hope they would endorse what I am about to say. Just about everything I have read so far about this atrocity has gone on about it being an attack on ‘freedom of speech’. This is fine as far as it goes (although there is a debate to be had about the extent to which we actually have freedom of speech), but I tend to find such comments a bit condescending and patronising much of the time (even when I make them myself). It is almost as if people are saying “You are talking a load of rubbish, but feel free to carry on saying it, you idiot”. Some of the comments about Charlie Hebdo have been close to this, but I also think that there is another dimension to this that people are loathe to articulate, and that is to defend and endorse what Charlie Hebdo has actually been saying, not just about Islam, but religion in general, i.e. religion is ridiculous and it should be ridiculed. One of my main reasons for saying this may seem untenable at first, given the events in Paris. Ridiculing all religion in general is possibly the best way we have of ridding the world of the scourge of religious fundamentalist extremists. Extremities of any sort are the far-flung elements at the periphery of the more substantial main body. That is the same for fingers and toes, as it is for leaves and twigs. You can remove extremities and the main body will survive easily enough, and their is always the potential for regrowth of the extremities. Take the main body away from the extremities and they simply cannot survive – they just shrivel away to nothing. It is the main body that generates and sustains the extremities. Rationality alone is not enough to rid people of deeply ingrained and indoctrinated religious beliefs. Scientists with religious beliefs are not common, but far from unknown. Highly intellectual clergy apply their intelligence to trying to solve the inevitable riddles of their irrational beliefs. But constant challenging, and yes, repeated ridiculing, does get through to people eventually. When everyone around you points out your stupidity, you may get defensive at first, but all but the most stupid will start evaluating their position. I therefore contend that rather than politely respecting religious beliefs, especially those of the mild-mannered middle ground, we owe it to humanity as a whole to do our best to consign these ancient and primitive creeds, focussed on supernatural nonsense, to the dustbin of history. ‘Doing our best’ will never involve guns, bombs or violence of any sort. Violence is never a rational response to any problem. ‘Doing our best’ will never involve unduly picking on one set of religious beliefs in particular. We do not discriminate – they are all ridiculous. ‘Doing our best’ does not involve banning anything, or denying people anything. ‘Doing our best’ does involve using the power of the spoken and written word to keep on pointing out the idiocy of it all. Let them be offended. Let them be indignant. These are the responses of people losing the rational arguments and having nothing else to defend themselves with. But beware – these people are the ones that then give up on words and turn to violence – never to avenge their (non-existent) gods, but as the last resort to shut up the people they can’t stand seeing and hearing highlight their stupidity. They are losers, and when they are all gone we may finally achieve some semblance of a sane world.      

PS. While standing by my comments above, I have been made aware of some debatably racist stuff published by Charlie Hebdo. This is, of course, a wholly different matter. Racism is even more indefensible than religion, and has more to say about the people who espouse it than those it is directed at. It therefore should not be banned – the free speech argument again – but needs opposing and ridiculing in itself. So as much as “Je suis Charlie” re religion, they perhaps cannot be granted unconditional solidarity even at this difficult time.

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 21,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 8 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

7.00pm Thursday 8th January 2015 at the Railway P.H., Derwen Road, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan CF31 1LH (one minute from train station and 2 mins from bus station)

ALL WELCOME (Especially new members!)

AGENDA:

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Apologies for Absence
3. Minutes and matters arising
4. Officers Reports – including membership update
5. Councillor feedback
6. Campaigns Update- fracking/bedroom tax
7. Elections – General Election candidates for Bridgend and Ogmore
8. Bridgend Green Party AGM
9. AOB – incl National Conference
10. DoNM

REMINDER – If anyone needs a lift to any of our meetings, let Andy know (andy.chyba) and we will organise it for you.

N.B.
Re Agenda item 7: I am considering my future with the Green Party at the moment and as such have decided to withdraw my candidacy as Bridgend’s PPC for the General Election. Wales Green Party’s aim remains to stand in as many constituencies as possible, and there are rumours of candidates being ‘parachuted’ in if we do not find candidates from among our ranks. Personally, I think this should happen if the Bridgend membership are happy for it to happen. There are other places these ‘volunteer’ candidates could stand if we did not want to contest our constituency, for whatever reason. I have no strong feelings over this at all, one way to the other. GE selection rules attached.

2014 GE selection rules-1.doc

Re Agenda item 8: The AGM will take place on Thursday 5th February – venue to be confirmed. This is going to be a ‘make or break’ AGM for Bridgend Green Party.
I am no longer going to be effectively running the party as chairman, irrespective of whether I remain a member or not. I will, however, be happy enough to advise and assist whoever takes over.
The Elections Officer role has been John Evans’ domain until he resigned his national membership earlier this year and reverted to being just a local member. He is not therefore eligible to continue in this role, which has to be taken by a full national member.
The Treasurers role has been undertaken by Neil Rogers for the last 4 years. I will ascertain whether he is happy to continue, or not, at January’s meeting.
If these roles are not filled at the AGM, the Local Party becomes unconstituted and should be wound up, or merged with another local party. I will be submitting a provisional motion to the AGM to cover this eventuality. Bridgend Local party Constitution attached:

Bridgend Local Party constitution.doc

AGM Provisional Agenda:

• (1) Welcome, Election of chair,
• (2) Minutes,
• (3) Reports from officers and councillor,
• (4) Election of officers,
• (5) Review of year (including campaigning activity and Conference feedback),
• (6) Report on Election campaigns and situation re target wards,
• (7) Motions and BGP constitutional amendments (if any),
• (8) Dates and venues for next 12 months
• (9) A.O.B.

Notes:
OFFICERS
We run on a skeleton executive of three officers at present in order to satisfy National Party and legal requirements.
These consist of:

1. Chairman – acting also as Local Party Contact (and PPERA Second Officer)
2. Elections Officer – acting as Election Agent and Nominating Officer
3. Treasurer

On top of this, there is a need for a Minuting Secretary (currently being done by the Elections Officer) and Blog/Website Officer (currently being done by the Chair). In an ideal world, we also need a Membership Secretary (sort of done by the Chair currently); and, ideally, a Fundraising Co-ordinator.

MOTIONS and/or BGP Constitutional Amendments
If any body wants to propose any, then please do so by email or post by 20th January, so that they can can be distributed for consideration before the AGM itself. They will need proposing and seconding by full members (either at the AGM or via email/post in advance) before they can be put to a vote at the AGM.

clicking on image takes you to the poll proper

I believe the three options given should cover everybody’s position. If not, please add a comment.

Comments supporting your choice would also be welcomed.