Monday 5 June 2017

Why I've decided to vote Green, plus a few other political thoughts

When I first set up this blog, I had never even considered using it to talk about politics. However it's a convenient place to write up my thoughts in as logical way possible, so I make no apologies.

At the last two general elections, I voted Lib Dems and Greens in that order. I voted in my parent's South West Hertfordshire constituency which I knew would return their long-standing Tory MP. Knowing that my vote was essentially worthless, I was free to waste it in the way that seemed best to me.

I'm now voting in the Bristol West constituency, which is a two horse race between the incumbent Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire and the challenging Green MP Molly Scott Cato, who is currently one of the MEPs for the region. This gives me a unique and indeed privileged opportunity: not only does my vote actually count for something in this election, but I'm not constrained by the need to vote for the best choice to keep a Tory MP out. That also means I have a duty to think deeply about how I cast my vote.

That choice has of course been influenced by the way this election campaign has played out. When the election was first announced, almost everybody assumed that the Theresa May would sweep away all in front of her, helped of course by Murdoch and Dacre, while Labour would be decimated and reduced to a party of infighting, doomed to split neatly down the middle. The assurances from Corbyn that he was fighting to win seemed risible. A week is a long time in politics, and 8 of them are a lifetime. Now if there is one politician who looks like a prime minister in waiting, it is Corbyn.

Now that a hung parliament or even a Labour majority seem plausible, if not likely, Labour would seem the clear choice for my vote. This brings with it an added responsibility. There is some comfort in voting for a party that couldn't possibly form a government, because when that government screws up down the line it's nothing to do with you. So would voting Green not be shamefully abdicating responsibility for a hypothetical Labour government's mishandling of Brexit? Taking responsibility seems to be a compelling reason to vote Labour.

The Labour and Green manifestos share much in common, but there is also plenty to separate the two. The Greens champion many progressive concepts, notably the Universal Basic Income (UBI). If implemented wisely, this could have the potential to completely revitalise the economy, along with the lives of many struggling on benefits and low incomes. They also back proportional representation. I have believed for years that first-past-the-post, outdated and broken, is the reason behind many of our political problems in the UK. How can people be fairly represented when the vote of entire constituencies is taken for granted? The numbers speak for themselves: in 2015, the Greens and UKIP combined received 16.5% of the popular vote yet won just 1 seat apiece, compared with the SNP winning 56 seats with less than 5% of the vote. Meanwhile the Tories were able to win a majority on just over a third of the vote. PR is a cause that must be fought for if we want to make society a fairer place.

Unfortunately the defining issue is Brexit, and here too there are difference in the Labour and Green approach. I am admittedly disappointed with Labour's approach, rejecting Single Market membership and Freedom of Movement, although their approach still seems eminently more reasoned than the Tory approach. There are risks too in the Green approach, shared with the Lib Dems, to negotiate a deal retaining Single Market membership then offer a final referendum between the negotiated deal and remaining in the EU. My concerns are twofold; firstly that a (presumably) pro-Remain government might deliberately engineer a bad deal in order to swing the vote in favour of remaining, and secondly that the referendum itself might be hijacked even worse than the first one. These concerns may be ill-founded, but we've already seen the damage that can be caused by a government calling a referendum when it actually supports the status quo. Nonetheless, insisting upon Single Market access is the correct course of action, and it is important to have strong pro-EU voices in parliament, that aren't tied to party policy.

But doesn't stealing a Labour seat put us at greater risk of a Tory government? Not really. A Tory majority is still the most likely outcome, and one less Labour MP and one extra Green doesn't change that. A Labour majority seems highly unlikely, their most hopeful route to government is via coalition or parliamentary pact with other parties, and the Greens are a natural party of alliance with Labour.

Contrast this against the gains another Green MP would bring. Caroline Lucas has been an excellent MP, speaking up clearly and eloquently on many issues. The fact that she is the only Green MP and that she is unencumbered by a whip gives her a further-reaching platform than the average Labour MP. A second Green MP would amplify that effect. I already mentioned the need for pro-EU voices in Parliament. Even more important are parliamentarians prepared to fight for environmental causes, now more than ever given Trump and Brexit. Climate chance is the existential threat and great challenge of our time. It is not enough for Theresa May to simply signal her disappointment with Donald Trump. It sounds cliche but a vote for the Greens is a vote to put environmental issues front and centre.

It will come as no surprise that I am opposed to Theresa May, but I ought to explain why. Everything about Brexit, from the original calling of the referendum, the way the campaigns were run and the fallout has reeked of party prosperity and personal ambition put before national interest. Theresa May called this election for personal gain. The "strong hand in Brexit negotiations" line is meaningless; a strong personal mandate nationally will not alter the resolve of the EU-27, but our interests are far better served by our negotiators needing to secure cross-party support for their plans.

At the time, I wondered if I was going too far in likening May's election to Erdogan's referendum as a political power grab. My comparison was later vindicated when she stood outside 10 Downing Street, using her national podium to accuse shady foreign actors of interfering in the election. This was pure Erdogan, a cheap and nasty tactic for short term popularity, which will do us no favours within Europe, and demeans the highest office in the land.

Her election campaign has shown contempt for democracy and for the electorate. She took people's votes for granted, choosing to eschew the building of a vision for society in favour of running her campaign based on a single slogan and the fact that she wasn't Jeremy Corbyn. But if you're going to attempt to build a cult of personality, it helps if you have a personality in the first place. "Strong and stable" has become a running joke, and Mr. Corbyn appears to be doing rather well. He has appealed to the public not just by putting forward a hopeful vision but by detailing it, defending his manifesto and his own record with far more enthusiasm and eloquence than May.

The chances are that May will still be prime minister this time next week, but her reputation will be irreparably damaged, and presumably she will have learnt a few lessons.

How can anybody who is afraid to take questions from voters or debate the opponent who she spent months dismissing possibly be trusted to negotiate the best future for our country?