Better Nation

47 Comments

• #1 by Gordon Kirk on February 10, 2011 - 3:40 pm

  

  For what it is worth, with Robin Harper standing down, and the non-engagement of the Green’s “Leader in Parliament” comparative lack of focus on environmental issues, his interests being “equality”, there is a real possibility that the Green vote in Lothians will shrink to deliver zero seats. That would be a good bet.

  • #2 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 3:45 pm

    

    Fair challenge. Is there a chance though that the impact of Harper standing down will be offset (partially or otherwise!) by the student vote leaving the Lib Dems for the Greens?

    Optimistic of me perhaps but Edinburgh’s colleges and universities must surely be a key voter demographic.

• #3 by James on February 10, 2011 - 3:48 pm

  

  In 2003 we beat the Lib Dems in the Lothians. I reckon we’ll need to do so again to get a second elected, and that seems pretty damn likely to me. They were on a pseudo-anti-Iraq high at the time, for one thing, not a stabbed-the-students low.

• #4 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 5:45 pm

  

  They might do better in Edinburgh if they actually focused on Green issues rather than trying to soak the rich etc. Admittedly the Citizen Smith routine may appeal to students and other non-earners, but it isn’t really good enough if they ever want to be anything other than a protest party.

  Example – I’m quite green. I run or cycle to work. I like to walk up hills. I like to ski down them, too, so I’m really not keen on global warming. I recycle stuff and believe that we should be conserving hydrocarbons, making major investment in renewables, insulating our homes, conserving water, buying local food etc. I drive a recycled car – an ancient Porsche. Much more environmentally friendly than buying a new car. I’m not exactly at the composting toilet stage but I’m still quite green on average. So, I should be a target voter.

  So would I vote green? No way. They currently seem to be leftists first, greens second. They might get a second preference for me if they didn’t want to tax me to death. I already pay way more than my share, and much of what I pay will be wasted.

  I’m not alone. Lots of people care about green issues but aren’t left of centre. To my mind, Green shouldn’t be about right or left. If they want more votes, they need to appeal to a broader base. It seems to be that their alternative is to remain ideologically pure and of zero practical relevance.

  After all, hand on heart, what have the Greens ever achieved in Scotland? Every year, they have a chance to gain concessions as part of the budget process. Yet they shut themselves out of negotiations and achieve nothing. Why?

  CC

  • #5 by Indy on February 10, 2011 - 6:32 pm

    

    I agree. I would never vote anything other than SNP myself (though I did use my second council vote for a Green as there was only one SNP candidate standing) but I don’t understand why the Greens are positioning themselves as a party of the hard rather than moderate left.

    I am not going to suggest that it is simply a tactic because I don’t think it is. Tactically it makes no sense.

    • #6 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 6:59 pm

      

      Well, it’s worth challenging your assertions there Indy.

      Are the Greens moderate/medium left and the SNP/Labour actually Centrists? It is worth noting that the Swedish ‘right of centre’ party is easily more left wing than either the SNP or Labour. The same may be true for other countries out there. Perhaps we’re not thinking globally enough when we stick badges on parties?

      After all, which of the Greens’ policies are really “hard left”? Or do ‘mainstream’ parties just try to marginalise the Greens for personal gain?

      • #7 by James on February 10, 2011 - 7:23 pm

        

        Like 75% of the population we want to renationalise the railways. Radical!

        • #8 by Daniel J on February 10, 2011 - 8:10 pm

          

          Let’s not forget that the SNP and Labour have both also mumbled about nationalising ScotRail.

          In my view a truly Green Ideology would be/is pretty left and radical, moving away from our current way of living and system of economics. It’s not just about changing light bulbs and driving efficient cars! (Although I know Martin doesn’t like the work radical 😉 )

          • #9 by James on February 10, 2011 - 8:14 pm

            

            Doesn’t stop him being one..

      • #10 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 9:26 am

        

        My point was in agreeing with Cassius – being concerned with environmental issues does not automatically mean being on the left. You might be surprised by how many Tory voters pick Green as their second preference. And a lot of Lib Dem voters say that they might also vote Green. Yet by taking a hard left position the Greens are going to alienate those kinds of voters.

        It just doesn’t make sense to me.

  • #11 by cynicalHighlander on February 10, 2011 - 6:32 pm

    

    Because Patrick is not a politician and comes across as an angry man.

  • #12 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 6:37 pm

    

    Good points CC,

    I think the Greens are between a rock and a hard place though. Stick to the environment and they remain part of the ‘loony left’, branch out into economic policies and they are abandoning their principles.

    For me, I think they are right to cover policies across the whole spectrum, makes them more of a political party than a mere pressure group. You say that you wouldn’t vote for them because they are lefties first and greens second but, as a self-confessed Green, don’t you agree that they are still the most ‘Green’ party? Don’t forget that most people don’t have the environment so high up the agenda so what does Patrick Harvie do? Crank up the Green message in order to win votes likes yours while abandoning 80%/90% of the electorate? Risky strategy. Especially when those extra votes are not guaranteed; one would have to think that the Greens are near the max to winning the Green vote.

    I have long held Greens and Lefties as being synonymous but I’m intrigued by your suggestion that Greens should be a broad church of left and right. Even Cameron successfully rebranded the Conservatives with the tree logo and ‘Vote Blue, get Green’ (before scuppering a lot of it upon getting into power) so why not indeed?

    And what have the Greens achieved? A fair challenge. I still think the insulation scheme from two years ago was a massive missed opportunity but I do hold the SNP ‘getting away with what they can’ rather than the Greens ‘aiming high’ for that but, still, I take your point. I guess with 2 MSPs there is only so much they can realistically achieve.

    Anyway, what’s wrong with soaking the rich? 😉

• #13 by Steve on February 10, 2011 - 7:13 pm

  

  I’d be amazed if the greens didn’t get at least one seat in the lothians. Patrick Harvie has raised their profile well and that will help. I don’t want to be nasty but I think Robin Harper standing down won’t do any harm.

  As an SSP supporter I’m still hoping the SSP could squeeze in and get a seat in the lothians. If they did would that affect the green party’s chances?

  I presume Margo is standing?

• #14 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 8:20 pm

  

  Jeff

  Elections are won in the centre. The further you move from the centre, the fewer the votes you get. A centrist ‘broad church’ Green party would appeal to green-minded people across the spectrum and have a much better chance of getting a decent number of MSPs – say half a dozen – and actually be able to implement Green policies.

  James

  What’s the point of shouting on the political sidelines about, for example, nationalising rail? That ship has sailed. It’s actually a really good example of a poorly thought out current Green policy. If you nationalise rail, you expropriate the rail assets of RBS, HSBC, Lloyds, Stagecoach, National Express, and reduce the market capital of those companies by hundreds of billions. So what, you might say? Well, these stocks are primarily held by pension funds, so all you’re really doing is robbing pensioners. If you’re still saying ‘so what?’ then you might wish to reflect on the fact that Scotland’s largest pension funds, by far, belong to large public sector organisations. So, you nationalise rail and help create funding shortfalls in public sector pensions across Scotland. And the trains will still be rubbish.

  Great idea!

  The fundamental point is this – trains are green no matter who owns them. Unfortunately the green agenda is currently being subordinated to hard left politics.

  CC

  • #15 by James on February 10, 2011 - 8:25 pm

    

    Your stuff on rail is just nonsense – it’s up to Scottish Ministers to award the Scotrail franchise, and in 2014 we’ll be trying to make sure it’s a not-for-profit public operator. In 2004 when it was transferred from National Express to First no-one was expropriated.

    Your other point is nonsense too, actually. Scotland has a range of views, and they should all be represented in Parliament. If all parties tack to the dull managerial centre occupied by Labour and the SNP big chunks of the electorate would be disenfranchised. I’d rather we got 5-10% for what we believe in than a larger number of votes for meaningless centrism.

  • #16 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 8:30 pm

    

    I have no problem with elections being won in the centre CC but I do have a (small) problem with people boasting of their left-wing credentials when they are either really centrists or just attracted to a party because it’s higher up in the polls, a political Man Utd chaser if you will.

    No big deal but let’s call a spade a spade and let’s not paint a group as extremists for holding perfectly reasonable mainstream policies and positions.

    Ok, (mini) rant over.

    • #17 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 9:35 am

      

      The Green position on the Budget was neither sensible nor mainstream. That is the underlying point that I think both Cassius and I were making. As a consequence of the position they took the Greens have narrowed their appeal to the electorate not broadened it.

      • #18 by James on February 11, 2011 - 10:19 am

        

        According to the September Ipsos Mori poll, 55% of Scots would prefer use of tax-raising powers to cuts. We’re mainstream, brother.

        • #19 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 11:24 am

          

          We can all quote polling evidence. 55 per cent of Scots said they would prefer use of tax-raising powers to cuts in September but the following November 78 per cent of them said they wanted to keep council tax frozen.

          The most imprtant poll here was the election last year when 77.6 per cent of Scots voted for parties which supported cuts.

          We ran an anti-cuts campaign and got 19.9 per cent.

          You got 0.7 per cent.

          We recognise that we lost that election. We recognise that the Scottish people did not give us a mandate to oppose Westminster’s cuts because they overwhelmingly supported Westminster having the right to do as it pleases with our money.

          • #20 by James on February 11, 2011 - 12:14 pm

            

            So you lost an election where you called for independence? Even if you add our vote to yours, less than a quarter voted for independence. I assume from your logic that you should give up on that position.

            Or is it, perhaps, more complex than that?

            • #21 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 1:02 pm

              

              ? The SNP will never give up on independence, it is what we are all about.

              But obviously we are not independent yet! And we recognise that we have no mandate to say to the Tory/Lib Dem Govt you have no right to cut our budget. The Scottish people gave them that right last May.

              So we deal with the consequences. There may be a debate about how to do that but the fact is that if most people vote for Westminster parties that support budget cuts then budget cuts is what is going to happen.

          • #22 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 1:05 pm

            

            Can I chuck the usual caveats about opinion polls into this, and also point out that people tend to have a view on something if asked in a poll, even if they don’t really have a view?

            For example, a US newspaper asked people about the “Public Affairs Act 1975” and found that 85% had a view for or against, despite the fact that it never existed in the first place. Then, 20 years later, they pulled the same trick, asking people for views on the repeal of the act, and found even more people had a view about it.

            Point is, folk don’t want to appear stupid or uneducated when you ask them a question, so won’t plump for don’t know in a poll. In this sense, if they think that more of the public is likely to agree with a statement, then they will agree with it too. The question you have to ask is how much of the 55% were actually fully informed about about the question, what its implications were and how to make a rational choice about the outcome.

            Incidentally, I’d count myself as each of the above, and I’d still plump for don’t know. Make of that what you will.

  • #23 by An Duine Gruamach on February 10, 2011 - 10:10 pm

    

    I think I’m a little younger than most people on here, so this is a genuine question – were the Greens a) notably more centrist and b) more effective in getting Green policies enacted when they had seven seats in the previous parliament?

    • #24 by James on February 10, 2011 - 10:40 pm

      

      Honest answer – we’ve got far more done this session but not because of any policy changes (I can’t see any major changes there anyway). The reason is the last session had a coalition with an overall majority, but now finely balanced Parliament means all parties have a say.

  • #25 by John Ruddy on February 11, 2011 - 7:19 pm

    

    If yuo nationalise ScotRail you wont expropriate anyones assets. The franchise owns nothing. The track is Network Rail (already a pseudo public sector body) the trains do belong to the banks, do there is a long tradition of rolling stock being owned by someone other than the operator.

    And hundreds of billions? The ROSCOs are valued in the low billions (Porterbrook was sold in 2008 for £2bn) , while the franchises actually have little book value, other than their ability to extract future profits from the taxpayer and the passenger.

    If you just decide to not re-let the franchise, you could effectively nationalise Scot Rail at little or no cost.

• #26 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 8:39 pm

  

  James

  You said you wanted to nationalise the railways….not appoint a not-for-profit operator for a time-limited period. Not really the same thing, is it?

  What are you going to do if a for-profit operator can run the franchise at less cost to the public purse? (This has happened numerous times) Pay over extra taxpayers’ money for the luxury of knowing that no-one in the private sector is making a buck? Or go with the evil privateer?

  CC

  • #27 by James on February 10, 2011 - 8:42 pm

    

    I’d be curious to see your evidence there. Given the amount of subsidy (up since privatisation) which goes straight out as dividends, the odds are against it.

  • #28 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 8:45 pm

    

    “This has happened numerous times” – The UK pays more than any European country to take an average rail journey. I for one am willing to take a punt on a different approach.

    • #29 by James on February 10, 2011 - 9:23 pm

      

      And I don’t mind if we don’t persuade that 25% who still back the current vastly expensive system. They’ll still get the benefit, sooner or later.

  • #30 by Daniel J on February 10, 2011 - 8:58 pm

    

    £2.5 Billion in subsidies to ScotRail over first 10 years of the contract. Even assuming efficiency goes down there should still be a saving.

  • #31 by Doug Daniel on February 10, 2011 - 9:20 pm

    

    CC, you can’t be a reader of Private Eye if you think privatisation has done anything to improve the rail services. In fact, I would be quite surprised if you’ve had to rely on FirstScotRail’s AWFUL services for any regular period of time. I used to get the Glasgow to Aberdeen train every Friday evening, and it really was a rarity for me not to step off the train, ready to write an email of complaint, be it for broken toilets, dirty carriages, or just being late – I lost count of the number of times the person waiting for me at the other end had to wait at the station for 20-30 minutes until my train wheeled in.

    Trains were run better when they were nationalised, that’s pretty much a fact. There are statistics which try to show that privatisation has made trains run on time more, but this is only because they now class a train to be “on time” if it’s within ten minutes of its arrival time. In my book, late is late.

    As James says, the rail companies receive massive subsidies – if these companies need subsidies to run services, then why are they paying out even a penny in dividends? Subsidies should be there to prop up loss-making-albeit-essential services, so if rail companies are making a profit, why are we paying them subsidies? The fact is these companies are not running the trains more efficiently than BR did, and they are not running them cheaper. All privatisation has done is allow companies to create monopolies and charge sky-high ticket prices.

    Free-market principles do not work if you don’t have a free market. If I’m not happy with ScotRail’s train services, that’s tough, because there is no alternative train service, there is no choice of train providers. That’s not a free market, it’s a monopoly. Where a public service runs as a monopoly, it should be run by the state, not by a private company that can then hold us to ransom.

    Public services should not be run for private profit. Renationalise rail, slash those ticket prices, and get everyone back on board. That’s the only way to get people out of their cars, because a train will never be as convenient as a car, and currently it is much cheaper to drive somewhere (even on your own) than to take the train.

• #32 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 9:35 pm

  

  Most high-profile example would be for-profit Camelot winning the contract for the lottery against a not-for-profit Branson bid.

  The reason for-profit operators can be cheaper is that they can bring experience/economies of scale which non-profit operators typically cannot. This is why for-profit McDonalds can sell a cheaper burger than a start-up non-profit burger joint could.

  Not-for-profit structures typically involve private profit anyway. They’re usually just so named to get politicians comfortable with private sector involvement. There may be no ‘profit’ but you can bet your mortgage that there will be upfront fees, commissions, operating and management contracts let to connected companies etc. all of which will add up to a pretty good equity return to the ‘non-profit’ operator.

  When politicians have tried to genuinely exclude private profit, then they have tended to find no credible bidders.

  Anyway….let’s agree to disagree. I do respect your position, sorry if that didn’t come across.

  CC

• #33 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 9:43 pm

  

  Doug

  I’m a regular Edinburgh-Glasgow traveller and I don’t really agree with you. For a start, that service is twice as frequent as it was when it was in public ownership.

  I think there’s a respectable argument, though, for saying that rail shouldn’t have been privatised in the first place. It was ideology over practicality. But I can’t get comfortable with the expropriation of private property involved in re-nationalisation. You can’t do that to shareholders and expect to raise private capital from the market any time soon afterwards.

  CC

  • #34 by Doug Daniel on February 10, 2011 - 11:41 pm

    

    Well, look at it this way. I remember reading that the Glasgow – Edinburgh route is the most expensive route in Europe, in terms of pounds per mile, so you would expect it to be a nigh on perfect journey. It’s a mere 46 mile journey, yet it takes around 50 – 60 minutes. I’ve been on that train in the morning, and my sister used to use it every day, so I know that it is essentially a mobile human sheep pen. She regularly got home late at night, moaned about broken toilets and having to stand for the entire journey. Even if you haven’t found the trains to be as awful as I have, do you think that journey is worthy of being the most expensive pounds-per-mile route in Europe?

    The thing is, we can’t leave the system as it is just for fear of upsetting the market. If something is fundamentally wrong, you have to correct it, even if it does mean upsetting a few people along the way. Otherwise, you’re falling into a similar trap as Unionists and their various arguments against independence.

• #35 by Douglas McLellan on February 10, 2011 - 10:44 pm

  

  I think that there are those who see the Green Party as a vehicle for their very left wing views as opposed to being a party primarily concerned with the environment:

  http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/01/why-the-left-needs-the-green-party/

  Politics in general needs parties that are primarily concerned with the environment as one of their key distinctive traits. The question is does the left need another party to dilute its vote?

  CassiusClaymore highlights a number of problems that I think are hard for the Greens to counter due to their left wing positioning.

  • #36 by James on February 10, 2011 - 11:05 pm

    

    It’s misleading to suggest there’s a division in the Greens about policy. When Conference discussed taking a clear decision to oppose the cuts and identify progressive revenue instead, it was nearly unanimous. Besides, most of the progressive measures we’re talking about have environmental benefits too – especially on energy and transport.

• #37 by Una on February 11, 2011 - 1:39 am

  

  I’m a non-car driving, recycling, fair-trading, environmentally aware, liberal leftie yet I still vote SNP and would not vote for the green party. Why is that, I wonder? I don’t rightly know… but I do think they’ve been less effectual under the minority government than they could have been, and the direction change under Harvie has made them less easy to work with (much as I like him, and indeed all the greens). The latest budget is a perfect example of a missed opportunity to actually get something done.

  • #38 by jim jepps on February 11, 2011 - 6:13 pm

    

    I’m not convinced that there was a real opportunity there to get the right thing done – and having influence is not the same as having a positive influence. I’d hate it if the Greens did a deal just so they could say they won something, but in reality had lost the opportunity to say – there is another way.

    Regardless of how many ‘points’ any of the parties score on the budget, for example, we’re now facing large scale job losses and loss of public services. There is a movement against this – but it’s largely outside of the elected chambers of every level.

    I’m very happy for that movement to at least have one friend in the Scottish Parliament and I hope after May it has many more.

    • #39 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 10:39 am

      

      “I’m very happy for that movement to at least have one friend in the Scottish Parliament and I hope after May it has many more.”

      You do know there are two Green MSPs right Jim? Your line makes it sound like only Patrick or Robin are onboard the anti-cuts express, next stop libraries everywhere, *toot toot*.

      (sorry, got a bit carried away there)

      • #40 by jim jepps on February 13, 2011 - 12:36 pm

        

        I did um and ah about whether to say two friends or one. The one friend I refer to is, of course, the Green group – I worried that if I said two friends it might sounds like I was including Labour, or someone.

        • #41 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 12:40 pm

          

          Wouldn’t worry about it. I’m sure I’m the only one pedantic and picky enough to notice it, let alone mention it. You may be right that one sounds better than two anyway.

• #42 by Stuart on February 11, 2011 - 1:05 pm

  

  I’m sorry, have I missed something? The Greens have always been left wing- its a simple part of Green philosophy that equality and respect for everything (including humans) goes hand in hand with respecting the environment.

  This hasn’t suddenly changed since 2007. What has changed is the political narrative of the country- that cuts will damage our environment (and when I say environment, I mean ALL our environs- from our workplace to our home, not just our local nature reserve!) as well as the well being of many people due to loss of jobs and pubic services. So the Greens have to react to this narrative- it would be a bit odd if they just didn’t engage at all with one of the biggest changes to the country in 80 years(!)

  The Greens have acted in a perfectly logical and methodical manner when you look at the political theory that is the backbone of the party- we must do all we can to protect and look after people, and with it the environment, in this country- so we must raise revenue fairly to counter the effects of the cuts that will be damaging to so many people.

  You could compare this to other parties basic theories- the SNP want independence so their narrative is that Scotland would be better without the Tory cuts and the UK- that’s logical. The Tories as well- they ideologically want small state, low taxes (at the expense of the well being of millions of people) and have been given the opportunity to deliver it are in the process of getting to that goal.

  The Lib Dems and Labour, well no. You’ve lost me in both their parties’ logic…

  • #43 by Indy on February 12, 2011 - 4:53 pm

    

    That’s an internal point of view. What I am saying is from an external point of view – from the point of view of an activist in another party in fact – it is apparent to me that support for “green” issues in a broad sense is not confined to left wing voters, far from it in fact.

    By adopting an overtly left wing stance therefore the Greens are narrowing their potential support base. That is something I find odd but it is not a criticism as such (because it makes no odds to me what happens to the Green vote in May), it just runs counter to what I would see as effective campaigning, especially when there are so many Lib Dem voters looking for a new home.

• #44 by A Brown on February 11, 2011 - 5:35 pm

  

  I think the greens are probably on course to return 4/5 MSPs this time.

  I certainly approve of their position on the Forth Road Bridge – seems irresponsible to rush toward building a new one after getting rid of tolls.

• #45 by Steven on February 11, 2011 - 11:47 pm

  

  Trouble with the Greens is not that they are liberal/left wing but these leanings are couched in authoritarian policies e.g not allowing freedom of choice on abortion, conference taking a pro-abortion stance whilst other parties alow freedom of conscience. Same with church schools.

• #46 by Neil Craig on February 12, 2011 - 6:29 pm

  

  I think tyhe big imponderable is how far the LD vote will crumble. Partly because they will be associated withthe Conservatives, which is not entirely fair & partly because they have shown they are as eager to lie and defraud as the others, which is entirely fair. That might work to the Greens profit but since all 5 parties are in broad agreement about destroying our economy, freezing pensioners and lying to us on almost everything there seems to be little point in choosing.

  • #47 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 10:14 am

    

    Yes, I’d certainly agree with your first point Neil (not so sure about the 5-party consensus on freezing pensioners though). It’s quite possible that many are overstating the number of people who are unhappy with Clegg/Lib Dem involvement in the coalition. The whole point of voting Lib Dem in GE2010 was to break up the ping-pong of Lab-Tory rule and, well, that’s happened. Maybe not precisely as planned but I wouldn’t be ‘that’ surprised if the Lib Dems maintained vote share but at the same time, it is the Conservatives they are working alongside and if that brand is about as toxic as it has been for lefties in the past couple of decades then there is just as much chance of a total implosion.

    It’s difficult to tell from the polls as ‘smaller’ parties to tend to have a late rally (which I’m conveniently counting on with the Greens!)

Comments are closed.