Democracy in Britain leaves a lot to be desired – like actual democracy, for example. Governments secure unconscionable power with 33% of the popular vote; parties run multi-million pound election campaigns, ensuring they owe some millionaire or business, something, sometime; the anachronism of the constituency MP is still firmly in place and not going anywhere – I could go on.

But we should recognise what’s of value in our political system, and I can think of nothing more valuable than Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQs) and the adversarial zeal that it epitomises.

Think of it. The PM has to stand before the dispatch box, in front of a crowded chamber filled mostly with political enemies, and face half an hour of questions for which no preparation can really be taken. We can boot these people out of power with little pencils on strings once every five years or so, but the public standing of a PM can be destroyed by one bad performance (as they well know). Harold ‘Supermac’ Macmillan, that unflappable Tory, recounted in his memoirs that he would often have to pop to the gents’ to vomit with nerves before a performance at PMQs; a First World War veteran, he compared the experience to ‘going over the top’.  Who doesn’t want the PM to experience that kind of terror on a weekly basis?

The principal value of all this is that it makes the holding of the executive to account worth watching. This is something remarkable and very rare: compare those theatrical half hours on BBC Parliament with the legislative processes of most other countries, and you’ll see that this needs defending. Most European countries have hopelessly dull, ‘consensus’ – based affairs to sit through, and the goings on in the houses of America’s Congress could almost have been designed to make the savvy American voter change the channel.

C-Span, America’s main public service broadcaster (and a phenomenal aid to democracy and transparency in the US) broadcasts this half hour live to an American audience; it is one of its most popular shows. We can all feel rigid with pride thinking of Americans, living in a country racked with infantile consensus politics, sitting in their living rooms thinking, ‘Why don’t we have this?’ Image the chimp-president George W Bush subjected to this treatment for eight years. (Footnote: Proposals for an American Question Time, on the British model,  have been suggested since the days of Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, it was a little commented upon electoral pledge of John McCain, though sadly far outweighed by his choice of an illiterate demagogue for running mate).

PMQs, and the adversarial nature of Parliamentary proceedings in general, have their basis in a very British form of public culture, which has been termed a ‘boisterous democracy’. We argue in pubs, argue in our courts, argue in the street. We gravitate towards writers who don’t give a shit and have a sturdy tradition of ‘English Troublemakers’,  as A.J.P Taylor called them, who stand at the back and shout ‘Shame! Rubbish!’ at elected heads of state. Let the yanks make soothing noises about ‘bi-partisanship’, their Congress is boring.

Nigel Farage (a degenerate righty, I know) exported a bit of this spirit when he confronted our European overlord, Herman van Rompuy, in the EU Parliament. I’d encourage you to watch the short video below, and feel proud:

Nigel Farage harangues EU President Herman van Rompuy

Look how the Dutch-speakers boo and hiss!

Here’s one of the great parliamentary performances of the late Michael Foot, berating the then Industry Secretary Keith Joseph:

Michael Foot\’s Magician

This tells you all you need to know: in British political culture, it is quite acceptable for an MP to publicly humiliate a member of Her Majesty’s Government, providing the flowery language is kept to and some wit is on display.

Here’s the paragraph about how this wonderful thing is under threat: John Bercow – a lurid misogynist as it happens – has stated that the ‘abusive’ nature of PMQs needs revising. From the BBC website:

‘Mr Bercow…suggested the prime minister and opposition leaders of the day agree a “common understanding of behaviour” among their MPS, enforced by the whips, which would allow the Speaker to operate “the parliamentary equivalent of yellow and red cards…if that were to prove absolutely necessary” [My emphasis]‘

Never mind the fact that members can already be suspended for failing to keep to protocol; never mind the fact that this would constitute a great increase in power for the already over-powerful whips; and never mind the fact that the drama of PMQs  - in particular watching two grown men insult each other in fancy language – is its main appeal. David Cameron talked about ending the ‘Punch and Judy politics’ of Westminster: you know what a slimy bastard this man is when he references one quintessentially English institution to attack another. Swine.

On Tuesday the Guardian printed a fascinating and excellent piece by the philosopher Etienne Balibar. Unfortunately they chose to give it the slightly misleading title “Europe is a dead Political Project“. In fact Balibar argues that the European Union, it’s currency, it’s government and its technocrats, is looking doomed, but that this urgently poses the need for a new European civil society, built from the bottom up:

Does this mean that, in order to reverse the course of recent history, to shake the lethargy of a decaying political construction, we need something like a European populism, a simultaneous movement or a peaceful insurrection of popular masses who will be voicing their anger as victims of the crisis against its authors and beneficiaries, and calling for a control “from below” over the secret bargainings and deals made by markets, banks, and states? Yes indeed.

Balibar’s call is timely. Such a movement is a necessity, and it is a movement that must be pan-European. Of course we must direct our fire at our own national states, solidarity begins at home; but we should do so in constant communication with movements in other countries. The first test is Greece. Can effective European solidarity with Greece be built that can overcome xenophobia and austerity?

One place where more discussion is required is Balibar’s mention of the social democratic parties of Europe, what he calls the left. He is certainly correct that they have “surrendered to the dogmas and rationales of neoliberalism”. In Greece they are the ones driving through the austerity measures, in Britain we have just ended 13 years of neo-liberal, third-way Labourism. However, it does not follow that  “it has lost every capacity to express social struggles or launch emancipatory movements”. This is a question that we are posed with sharply in Britain at the moment. Our traditional social democratic party has moved from government to opposition. We should not be at all surprised if they begin to more clearly express, and even launch, social struggles. This creates strategic questions for those who have long ago rejected these organisations that cannot be shirked by reminding ourselves of their past crimes.

Balibar’s piece is part of a debate on the European left that needs to happen. This debate itself won’t stop the austerity measures that Europe’s elite want to impose in every single country. However, it is important that there is a debate which can shape the form that resistance to these measures can take, and that can allow us to share experiences across borders. Small steps taken in that direction ought to become big strides as soon as possible.

Image: Euro Realist Newsletter/flickr

So…exactly how shocked should we be that the party that spends most of its time denouncing the EU as corrupt and undemocratic now has an unelected Peer of the Realm at the helm?

Egemen Bagis

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

Yesterday, Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s chief EU negotiator, gave a speech in Greece on strengthening ties between the former rivals, Turkey’s EU candidacy and how to resolve the thorny issue of Cyprus. Press-Gr’s Christos Loutradis reports for The Third Estate

It was a speech of lifting taboos. Egemen Bagis, chief EU negotiator and Turkish Minister of State, spoke for the first time to a Greek audience in a lecture that was organised by the International Centre for Black Sea Studies. The audience comprised the political, academic and diplomatic elite of Greece and the rest of the world. From the Government side, the Member of Parliament Michalis Katrinis, from the previous Government of New Democracy, the ex deputy minister of Foreign Affairs Giannis Valinakis, and Giorgos Dendias, a personal friend of Egemen Bagis and the former minister of Justice. The most surprising presence, however, was that of Giannis Karantis, ex chief of the Greek Intelligence Service and MP for the ultra-nationalist party LAOS.

Bagis began his speech with a moving opening, stating that he feels proud “to be in the birthplace of Democracy”. In addition, he argued that “today’s event, your presence shows the great potential for the betterment of the relations between the two nations.”

“Turkey and Greece share a common fate and a common future,” the chief negotiator of Turkey added.

The Greek audience responded with satisfaction when Bagis proclaimed that “a new era has started in the relations of the two countries, with the Government of Papandreou willing to build a peaceful future with Turkey.”

The Minister added that during this period, Erdogan’s Government has demolished the taboos of the Turkish Society, by addressing the Kurdish problem and dealing with all the open disputes with Armenia. “It is time to talk to Greece, too.”

The most interesting part of Bagis’s speech, however, was the revelation that Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan agreed to the formulation of a co-operation council between the two nations that will discuss at the highest level all the disputes that may arise in the future. In addition, Bagis said that Erdogan plans to visit Athens in the near future.

EU-Turkish Relations

The chief negotiator suggested that accepting Turkey into the European Union would be a win-win situation. The EU will benefit from the role of Turkey as “a bridge between different civilizations, religions and cultures”. In addition he added that Turkey’s bid to join the EU serves as “a source of inspiration for the deprived of the world such as the Muslim community.”

Giannis Ioakeimidis, professor of International Relations at the University of Athens, asked Bagis if Turkey will accept a special status relationship with European Union. Bagis replied that “Turkey is a candidate for full membership of the EU and any alternative is not accepted.”

Moreover, Egemen Bagis argued that “the European Union should prove it wants to be an alliance of civilisations… We will part of the solution and not part of the problem of the EU.”

Cyprus

With regards to Cyprus, the Minister expressed the official view that Turkey will support any solution that is agreed by the leaders of the island’s two sides. Furthermore, he praised the efforts of the two Presidents, Talat and Christofias, and stressed that Greece and Turkey should support the two presidents sooner rather than later. “Their term is limited and we do not know who will govern next. We must help these guys.”

Another interesting point arose from a question raised by a citizen with regard to the presence of the Turkish Army in Cyprus. Bagis said that the Turkish Army protects the safety of the Turk-Cypriots and it will not withdraw unless all the other armies withdrew too.

Quite clearly, there’s still a long way to go.

From a journalistic and more personal perspective, Egemen Bagis’s most interesting moment was when he praised the Greek citizens who contribute to the Turkish newspapers and the Turkish Citizens who contribute to the Greek newspapers.

In conclusion, Bagis left Greece with a strong impression of a political personality committed to peace.

For those, like me, who have lived all their lives in a democracy, the impending coronation of Europe’s president is a rather strange affair. We can leave aside the fact that the people of most of Europe were given no say on the creation of the post. We could even leave aside that – for whatever resons, good or bad – there will be no mass voting for the new post. Yet what is particlarly jarring is that this important decision seems to be almost completely outside of the public sphere.

You might think that – at the very least – those who are aiming at the presidency would, within a democratic culture, seek to appeal over the heads of national prime ministers, to build a bit of public support and maybe even leaverage a bit of popular pressure. Yet the front runners have barely even done as much as put themselves forward and tell us – the public – that they want the post and that they think they’d be good at it. Instead we – the British and European public – have been reduced to keeping our ears to the ground, to watching out for rumours in the newspapers about who is doing deals with whom, as though the race for the presidency were a game of chess.

Indeed the EU in general is structured around a contempt for democracy. Earlier in the year we were treated to the spectacle of EU commissioners – accountable to nobody – telling Britain’s elected government that it must exacerbate problems of mass unemployment by reining in its fiscal deficit.

And if there is one word I am sick of reading right now it is ‘Europhobe’. Over at Liberal Conspiracy – and indeed throughout much of the liberal left – it seems to be deployed as a catch all term to describe any skepticism about or opposition to the EU. Its a language that implies that skepticism about the EU is primarily the domain of irrational Little Englanders, driven by xenophobia towards continental Europeans and petty nationalism.

And this in turn offers a clue as to why sections of the soft left are so bizarrely supportive of the EU. For some time now I have felt parts of the left are more interested in fighting ‘culture wars’ than politics wars, more interested in sniggering at relatively disenfranchised people who read the Daily Mail, or fly the British flag than addressing the big questions about the distribution of economic and political power. Thus when it comes to the EU it seems that some people think it more important to define themselves in opposition to nationalism and patriotism, than to take a stance in defence of basic democratic values.

There are certainly advantages to a federal Europe. But if it is going to be a modern day version of the Holy Roman empire – where princes ‘elect’ emperors – or an enlightened bureacracy in which huge power is excersised by unaccountable comissioners – then, as a democrat I say that we are better of out of it.

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

Following our coverage of this month’s Greek elections, The Third Estate continues its partnership with Press-Gr, one of the foremost news sites in Greece, by inviting Christos Loutradis to look at the country’s thawing relations with Turkey.

Where a Prime Minister chooses to visit on his or her first trip abroad is often a telling sign of their foreign policy priorities. Interestingly, of all the places he could have gone, newly elected social democrat, George Papandreou, made the decision to visit that old enemy Turkey. Papandreou’s election signals a significant shift in foreign policy from the days of his conservative predecessor. One that is open, tolerant and ‘aggressive’, but, with luck, in a constructive way.

Has Greece finally woken up? This is the central question of the lips of the nation, from leading analysts in political and media circles, to the demos themselves.

Speaking in Istanbul, Papandreou heralded a new beginning in Greece’s policy towards the Cyprus Issue. “We must allow the two communities in Cyprus to solve their disputes solely alone, without depending on other states or international super-powers,” he said. Papandreou’s statement came as he publicly confirmed his pledge to support Turkey’s candidacy for European Union membership, under the condition that Turkey commits to preventing dogfights over the Aegean Sea.

Meanwhile Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, is trying to foster the public image of a European politician reaching out to his neighbours in an attempt to resolve the ongoing disputes, most notably with Greece and Armenia. Papandreou’s visit is important to this process of conflict resolution, not because anything concrete was agreed but because of the semiotics. And in our modern mass mediated era, semiotics are important in and of themselves.

As for the Greek media, it has lauded the newly elected Prime Minister for choosing Turkey as his first overseas destination, suggesting a new era between the two nations has begun despite the diplomatic woes waiting to be solved.

“The Greeks have realised that Greece and Turkey should live in harmony because friendly relations are the only way to solve all the heated internal problems,” Greek journalist John Papadimitriou told us. “The media just followed society’s preference.”

The pro-government newspaper, Ta Nea, said Papandreou was in favor of dialogue between Ankara and Athens, but added that he would not accept what it called a “rubber check” from Turkey. The conservative newspaper, Kathimerini, said Papandreou’s meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister would have a “positive impact,” and also drew attention to the Greek Prime Minister’s remarks in which he said the European Union should listen to the Turkish people. The leading political website, Zougla, said Papandreou has declared “a new era of diplomacy” just a few days after his election victory.

“Papandreou will continue the friendly approach toward Turkey he pursued in the early 2000s with the efforts of late Turkish Foreign Minister İsmail Cem,” a professor of International Relations at the University of Panteion in Athens, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Daily News. “If he succeeds, the Prime Minister will move forward in solving all of the issues between Greece and Turkey. In my opinion the main problem is the Cyprus issue, which should bother neither Turkey nor Greece,” the professor said.

Another academic specialising in international relations, Alexis Irakleidis, called for a discussion on different approaches regarding the Aegean problem. “The Greek government should understand that President Barack Obama’s foreign policy will not accept Greece as a good guy and Turkey as a bad one. We should sit down and discuss the situation in the Aegean.”

Whatever happens next, this is undoubtedly a positive first step.

It’s that time of year again. The silly season has ended, Parliament is getting ready to return from recess and, with swine flu beginning to look like a fuss about not very much and the worst of the recession said to be over, the British media is beginning to turn its attention to the party conferences. The buzzword this year is cuts. Labour, Tory and Lib Dem alike are at pains to explain how best to slash the country’s budget deficit, walking a tightrope of public expectations over a media circus. Against the fanfare and furore of the big three scrambling to shore up their support, however, there’s one party that often goes overlooked. On the back of their best results in twenty years, the Greens are on the rise and optimistic about their chances. Coming out of their last conference before next year’s general election, I caught up with their leader, Caroline Lucas MEP, and grilled her on the big issues, from the party’s future to their more controversial policies and just why she disagrees with James Lovelock.

“There was a very positive mood at conference, and there’s a great sense of determination within the party,” she says. “We’ve demonstrated pretty conclusively that in some places we can take on the big three.” Re-elected for a third term in the European Parliament in June, Caroline Lucas is widely tipped to be the Green Party’s best chance of winning a seat at the next general election and she now believes they are on the brink of a Westminster breakthrough.

But if the party has learnt anything in its long, hard slog to the spotlight, it’s that optimism is a double-edged sword. Similar predictions were made about a Green breakthrough in Brighton Pavilion in 2005, but despite a strong result, it never materialised. “We’ve made five years’ more progress on the ground since then,” Lucas tells me. “We came first in this year’s Euro-elections, not just in Pavilion, but across all three Brighton and Hove constituencies.” In Brighton Pavilion, the party now has the majority of the councillors and they won a majority of the votes in the most recent local elections. In the Goldsmid by-election in July, Alex Phillips’s convincing win stripped the Conservatives of overall control and tied the Greens with Labour as the second largest party on the council. “Basically, the Brighton Pavilion Green team is stronger than before, much more experienced, and very well organised.”

If Lucas’s predictions are anything to go by, she may not be sitting alone in the House of Commons next year. “It’s certainly possible that the next parliament could include two or even three Green MPs,” she says. “The party’s deputy leader, Adrian Ramsay, is leader of the opposition on Norwich City Council. The Greens hold a total of twenty city and county council seats there, where we held five last time around.” Norwich and Brighton are not the only areas the Greens are targeting however. “In Lewisham Deptford, our candidate, Darren Johnson, is currently the chair of the London Assembly, and he’s widely respected in London, not least in Lewisham, where he’s a borough councillor.” Five years ago, Lewisham Greens had only one councillor. Now they have six. “We have candidates who are leading Green politicians in their communities, with the experience and the vision to make effective MPs,” Lucas says.

Amidst mounting concerns over the economy and the environment, the party has seen a surge of support in recent years. But even with their share of the vote going up by 44%, more than any other party, the Greens failed to achieve their two basic goals at the European elections: to increase their number of MEPs and to stop the BNP. “Those goals were two sides of the same coin – in most cases, for the Greens to win the last seat in a region would serve the purpose of denying it to the BNP,” Lucas points out. “Of course it was extremely frustrating to get within about 1% of trebling our number of seats.” In the North West, where Nick Griffin scraped in by the skin of his teeth, the Green Party’s committed anti-racist campaigner, Peter Cranie, fell short by just 0.3% of the vote. “It’s hard to say what we could have done very differently, other than that more resources would almost certainly have enabled us to win seats in the East, North West, South West and Yorkshire and the Humber. But we gained 1,000 members during the six weeks of our campaign, which provides us with a great foundation for the next elections.”

It has often been said that the only thing holding the party back from mainstream success is the first-past-the-post electoral system. In an interview with The Third Estate just before the Greens gained over 1.3 million votes in the European elections, Peter Tatchell argued that under proportional representation, they could expect to gain as many as 40 MPs. I ask Lucas, whose support for electoral reform has always been as strong as her opposition to fascism, how she would answer those critics who argue that PR would bring about just as many BNP MPs. “If the BNP started winning seats under first-past-the post, would we suspend democracy to stop them getting elected?” she replies. “Of course not. I deplore their racism, ignorance and lies. However, I believe the best way to challenge them is to address the factors which drive individuals to vote for far right parties. If we treat the disease, the symptoms will go away.” Lucas argues that to exclude the BNP from the democratic process would be to set them up as martyrs who can claim the system refuses to deal honestly with the issues that concern their voters. “Some people vote BNP out of racism and intolerance. But probably far more vote for them out of a sense of serious disenchantment with the big three parties. There appears to be so little real difference now between Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, because they all talk the same and share the same core agenda. A lot of people feel let down by politics, feel their voice isn’t being heard, and some of those people will vote for an extremist party in protest. Inclusive, proportional elections would be one of the ways to help engage people in the political process.”

There was a time when the Greens themselves might have been considered an extremist party. An historic perception of them, the faintest traces of which persist to this day, is of  a single-issue party for beardy organic farmers and firebrand eco-warriors. “The Green Party has never been a single issue party!” argues Lucas. “We’ve always been a party of social justice, and believe that equity has to be at the heart of a sustainable society. We’ve also always made the case that the best way to protect the environment is to transform the goals and direction of the economy to make it genuinely sustainable.” Often, when the media has discussed party policy, it has tended to be linked to environmental stories. Lucas believes this is changing. “We finally seem to be succeeding in getting the media to pay more attention to our economic policies – for instance, with this year’s million-jobs manifesto, geared towards tackling the recession and the climate crisis at the same time. And I hope that in the run-up to the general election, the media will play its part in communicating the alternative political choices on offer, rather than just following the main three party leaders around. Then the differences between the Greens and the big three would become blindingly obvious.” Here that buzzword comes up again. Cuts. “While they talk about cutting services and tightening belts, we’ll be arguing for low-carbon investments that will create jobs, keep tax revenue coming in, and fund frontline services.”

One thing Lucas believes is helping them to better communicate their message is their decision to do away with the old system of a male and female principal speaker. Last year she was overwhelmingly voted the party’s first ever leader. “Most people like to be able to put a face to a political party,” she says. “So I believe that having a single leader with a clear, recognisable presence in the media allows us to communicate more effectively.”

After decades of fighting, the Green Party finally seems to be entering the mainstream. And after decades of dragging their heels, a consensus has emerged amongst world leaders that urgent action is required to tackle climate change. Does it encourage Lucas that the major parties are adopting increasingly environmentalist policies? “I’m not sure which has been more frustrating: the slow progress in this area, or the extent of the greenwash,” she says. “Yes, there’s now a consensus that we need to tackle climate change, and yes, the big three parties do go out of their way to appear green. But so much of this is rhetoric, and even now there is so much more that they should be doing.” Lucas points out that in 1997, Labour claimed to be the first green government, despite their weak climate targets and inadequate policies for meeting them. “Although some progress has been made, even now they still have the wrong targets and inadequate policies for meeting them, and they’re still building roads and expanding airports.”

The Greens have commendably been ahead of the times when it comes to scientific thinking on climate change. They were banging that bongo long before the band joined in. Some of the main criticisms of the party, however, have been for its broader scientific policy, most notably from Frank Swain and Martin Robbins who kicked up a pre-election storm by taking the Greens to task on GM food, embryonic stem cell research and alternative medicine. “Just because the Greens are sceptical about some scientific developments doesn’t make us ‘anti-science,’” Lucas says. “I have yet to see any convincing evidence that GM crops are anything other than unnecessary and damaging – or that many of the forces behind them have anything other than morally dubious motivations.” But what about the argument that, in the right hands, GM can be used to tackle hunger for the poorest people in the world? “When will GM crops be ‘in the right hands’ if they’re developed to increase dependency on the multinationals who own the seed patents? The issue here is about control of the food chain. There’s tremendous potential for greater organic food production, and there’s plenty of evidence that ecologically designed agriculture systems, using permaculture principles for example, can significantly increase the productive capacity of the land.”

Evidence, however, is key to the criticism of Green policy. In a follow-up article, Martin Robbins argues that in seeking to ban GM and embryonic stem cell research, the evidence necessary to ascertain safety can never be produced under a Green Party model. Robbins, who points out that the party believes experiments on human embryos could have harmful unforeseen outcomes, asks how you can ban something on the basis of unknown consequences, particularly when research into embryonic stem cells is vital for treating numerous conditions. I put the issue to Caroline Lucas, who has twice been named Observer Ethical Politician of the Year. “There are no easy answers,” she says. “Personally, I remain concerned about the associated health risks, the commodification of eggs and embryos, and the potential exploitation of women. Increasing research suggests that there are a number of promising alternatives, for example adult stem cell research, and umbilical cord stem cell research. These tell a growing number of success stories, without the problematic issues associated with embryonic stem cell research.”

The third criticism of the party’s scientific policy is its opposition to attempts to regulate alternative medicines. I ask Lucas if a more rigorous approach is needed to unproven remedies. “A balance must always be reached between the right of the individual to free choice, and the duty of society to protect us from the consequences of unwise choices,” she says. “I support the idea of a regulatory agency with responsibility for natural medicines, including nutritional supplements, medicinal plants and herbal remedies, essential oils and homeopathic remedies. I also believe that where people have found such remedies to work well for them, they should be given the freedom to continue taking them.”

If there’s one issue on which the Green Party has never been anything but utterly transparent, however, it’s the pressing need to save the planet from the worst human excesses. “The Green Party’s position is that we must adopt whatever targets are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change; to argue for these policies internationally and to lead by example. We believe that the current science demands a 90% UK reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030, with significant year-on-year cuts starting straight away.” Lucas is a strong enthusiast for the 10:10 campaign, launched earlier this month. “We believe there are huge spin-off benefits from emissions-reduction policies, ranging from much better public transport to warmer homes and a more stable economy, along with the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs. So a post carbon economy isn’t just possible, it’s highly desirable.”

One area of contention within the party, however, is on the question of nuclear power. James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis, who points out that global warming is much further advanced than IPCC models and Stern have suggested, has come out in favour of nuclear power as the only green solution in the time we have left. “I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens,” Lovelock argues. “But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.” Wrongheaded or not, Caroline Lucas is not about to drop her objection to nuclear energy anytime soon. “Nuclear power simply won’t deliver big enough emission cuts, fast enough,” she says. “Even if we doubled the amount of nuclear in this country, we would only save about 8% in emissions reductions, and not until 2030 at the earliest. Nuclear is also hugely costly, and carries major safety and security risks. The bottom line is that there are much cheaper, quicker, safer and more effective ways of making bigger reductions – energy efficiency, renewables, decentralised energy, combined heat and power, better public transport – the list goes on.”

Lucas agrees with Lovelock on one thing, however. “Climate change needs to be seen not just as an environmental issue, but as the greatest security threat that we face. We need to put the economy on something like a war footing, and introduce far more urgent action.”

Is it too late to save the world?

“No, I don’t believe that it’s too late, but we definitely need to be taking far more radical action than we currently are if we are to stave off the worst effects of climate change.”

If there’s one person who can convince us to take that action, it’s Caroline Lucas. Parliament magazine MEP of the Year in 2008, recipient of the RSPCA’s Michael Kay Award for outstanding contribution to European animal welfare, one of BBC Wildlife’s top conservationists, Vice President of the European Parliament’s Permanent Delegation to Palestine, and perhaps soon to be MP for Brighton Pavilion, Lucas is certainly hard at work. But if she succeeds, one thing’s for sure. The future’s bright. The future’s Green.

www.greenparty.org.uk

EU phases out inefficient light bulbs

Not content with telling us that bananas and cucumbers must be straight, milk chocolate must be called vegelate¹ and hula hoops are round, they’re staying round and they’ll be around for ever, the evil EU is now dictating what kind of light bulb hard working Brits are allowed to use in their own home. Apparently, those pesky policy makers think they can save a million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2020 and save the average household £37 if they phase out the inefficient old 100W bulbs. Under new rules which are to be implemented this week, shops will only be permitted to sell their existing stocks of the old bulbs. From now on they will be required to buy the new energy-saving bulbs which use 80% less electricity and have already become ubiquitous in British homes. In doing so, the EU hopes to help you save money and the environment. You couldn’t make it up!

¹ You couldn’t make it up, but it turns out the tabloids did. To this day these ridiculous myths are repeated verbatim in the right wing press without ever having had any basis in truth. The EU has its flaws, but the regulation of bananas isn’t one of them!

Friends, lefty bloggers, socialists, I’ve got a guilty secret. I’ve been actively campaigning for the Green Party in the upcoming European Elections on June 4th.  It’s been a difficult time for me politically. With the split in Respect, the failure of John McDonnell and the Labour left to leave a scratch on the New Labour hegemony and the absence of that new mass party of the working class that’s been promised for so long, I’ve found myself in search of a new political home. To a lot of people on the left, the Greens are, unfairly I think, still perceived as a soft option, a middle-class environmentalist party first with a few social policies tacked on. This is an image that many in the Green Party are seeking to shake off, and none more so than a certain human rights activist who stood for Labour in 1983, stood up to Mugabe in 1999 and wouldn’t stand for homophobia or hypocrisy when it came to The Pogues in 2007. In a Third Estate exclusive, I quizzed Peter Tatchell on what makes the Green Party much more than just a green party, their prospects for the future and why they are the only thing standing between Nick Griffin and the European Parliament.

The Third Estate: You’ve traditionally been a supporter of a red-green alliance and helped launch Green Left. Many socialists, however, continue to view the Green Party as a largely middle-class environmentalist party. Do you think, in light of Labour’s shift to the centre and the failure of Respect, that the Greens can fill the vacuum in British politics left by the absence of a genuine working-class socialist party?

Peter Tatchell: As Labour has shifted to the right, the Greens have moved to the left. We are now the party of social justice, as well as environmental protection. On trade union rights, for example, the Greens are much stronger than Labour. We support the Trade Union Freedom Bill, Labour opposes it. We are more radical than Labour on every issue – from jobs to health, education, housing and pensions. Many Green Party members are left-wing socialists like myself. Many of us resigned from Labour, appalled by its pro-big business policies and its support for privatisation, war-mongering and its attacks on civil liberties, such as the draconian anti-terror laws. The Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society sets out a radical agenda for fundamental social change, to benefit working class people, end the impoverishment of two-thirds of the world’s peoples and to save our planet from devastating climate chaos.

The Third Estate: In the current elections the Greens have been going out of their way to present themselves as much more than a single-issue party, highlighting in particular their social policies, whilst you yourself have a very strong record on human-rights. Do you feel the message is getting across and public perceptions are changing? What more do you think could be done?

Peter Tatchell: For more than two decades, the Greens have had a very progressive social agenda. Unfortunately, the media tend to cover us only when we campaign on environmental issues. That is beginning to change. As a result, more and more voters recognise that we have imaginative policies for a fairer society on a wide range of issues. That is why many of our new supporters are ex-Labour voters, left-wing independents and disillusioned voters who gave up voting years ago. They are fed up with the way Labour has ditched the working class and the trade unions. They saw Labour take us into an illegal war on false pretences and how Labour pandered to George Bush. Increasingly, people realise that the Greens offer a progressive alternative.

The Third Estate: In the past, Muslim voters have often tended to gravitate towards the Labour Party. The election of George Galloway in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005 was, perhaps, the clearest indication that Muslim voters are increasingly abandoning Labour in the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. With Respect not standing in the 2009 European Elections (and specifically endorsing the Green Party in the North West), do you feel the Greens can offer a natural political home to disenfranchised Muslim voters?

Peter Tatchell: The Greens took a strong, unambiguous stand against the Iraq war, right from the outset. Before the war began, I did a one-man protest; running out in front of Tony Blair’s motorcade, forcing his limousine to halt. It was a small symbolic gesture, but it was great to see Blair’s exasperated expression. For Muslim (and non-Muslim) voters who are disaffected with Labour’s pro-war policies the Greens offer a comfortable, welcoming, progressive political alternative. Many Muslims will, I think, also be attracted by the Green Party’s anti-consumerist, anti-materialist message. We emphasise quality of life, not quantity of possessions. Ours is a people-centred party that puts people’s needs first. Unlike the other parties, we are not obsessed with economic growth and GDP. We want everyone to have a decent standard of living – here in the UK and worldwide – but we also recognise that there are many other important things that are essential for happiness – a loving family and friends, good neighbours, clean air to breathe and a safe neighbourhood. Empowering people to support each other and sustain good community relations is part of the Green agenda.

The Third Estate: You’ve been campaigning in the North West where you’ve argued that a vote for the Greens is the surest way to stop the BNP. How is the campaign shaping up and what do you think the chances are of a red/green/anti-racist alliance succeeding in preventing Nick Griffin from winning a seat?

Peter Tatchell: A big vote for the Greens is the surest way to stop Nick Griffin and the BNP. The battle to win the last seat in the north west is between the Greens and the BNP. This means that a Green victory will keep Griffin out. The BNP is a divisive, bigoted, sectarian, nasty party. All that it offers is rage and hate. It has no practical solutions to the economic crisis, mass unemployment, climate chaos and the corruption of parliament. It has a sick history of scapegoating and vilifying black, Jewish, gay and Muslim people. Lots of people realise that the number one priority is to stop the BNP. When out canvassing, we have met many people who will be voting Green for the first time, partly to defeat Nick Griffin, partly to show their anger at the expenses scams by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, and partly because they have decided that the Greens have the best policies. Right now, the Greens are on 9% to 13% in the opinion polls. If this level of support holds up, and our supporters turn out to vote, Nick Griffin will be toast and the people of the north west will elect an anti-racist MEP, Peter Cranie of the Greens.

The Third Estate: By all polls and results, it would seem support for the Green Party has seen a steady increase in recent years. Can you envisage this support translating into MPs at the next General Election?

Peter Tatchell: In the wake of the banking and economic crises, a lot of people are realising that the Greens offer an alternative that is both credible and radical. Our support is rising. We have a good chance of electing MPs in Brighton and Norwich at the next general election. We would get many more MPs – perhaps 40 – if Britain had a fair voting system. That’s our biggest problem. The election method is rigged to favour the big three parties. We are pressing for major constitutional reform to enhance democracy and popular participation in politics. As well as proportional representation and fair votes, I want to see other reforms like an elected head of state, an elected second chamber, a written constitution, a Bill of Rights, the right of voters to recall their MP and the devolution of power to democratically elected regional parliaments. Changes like these will help make our political system more open, representative, accountable and fair.

www.petertatchell.net

It’s hard to get away from the reality that most people who are virulently opposed to the EU are twats, who probably shed a tear while watching videos of the queens coronation on youtube.

Yet when the elections come round in a couple of months I will be officially joining their ranks when i offer my vote to the NO2EU coalition.  The NO2EU is a new left wing euro-skeptic trade union backed organisation.  On their about page they say the following:

We want to see a Europe of independent, democratic states that value its public services and does not offer them to profiteers; a Europe that guarantees the rights of workers and does not put the interests of big business above that of ordinary people. We believe the current structures of the EU makes this impossible.

Personally speaking I have never had any great interest in defending British sovereignty in and of itself, and in abstract terms have no problem with the idea of nations pooling sovereignty. Yet the real issue with the EU is that of democracy. The point is that, whether we like it or not, it is within of nation states that democratic power – insofar as it exists – can currently be brought to bear. The real problem with policy decisions being made in Brussels, or by the European Court of Justice, is not that they are made beyound these shores. Rather it is that they are made outside the realm of mainstream public debate.

Today we have witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of the unelected EU commission telling the elected governments of France, Greece, Ireland, Spain and the UK  to rein in there fiscal deficits. Deficit spending, of course, is a crucial tool through governments can ameliorate rising unemployment, and lessen the enormous pain caused by recession. Reining it in, meanwhile, means cutting public services. It should be obvious to absolutely  anybody with an ounce of commitment to democratic principles that decisions on public spending should be taken by elected and accountable politicians.

But could the EU be democratised? The answer I would give is it possibly could in formal terms, and that it absolutely couldnt in real terms. Arguably it is impossible  for a territory in which 20 odd languages are spoken to operate as a democracy in any real sense. Pressure groups, political parties, civil society, the popular press will necessarily find it difficult to operate on a truly transnational level. It is a structure far more conducive to negotiations between elites, between bureaucrats carrying around armies of translators, than to popular action spanning the scope of the territory. Meanwhile any social and industrial gains that can be won within a national framework are necessarily imperilled by a structure enforces absolute mobility of capital, goods and services.

So, as somebody who has no interest in British patriotism, but does have an interest in making popular interest and popular action the centre of politics, I will be voting ‘NO’ to the EU.