Vote Green Andy Brown
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
Vote Green Andy Brown

Vote green
andy brown

Andy got 3,734 votes for Green party in Skipton & ripon at 2017 election

Follow us on Facebook

Why we got less than 4% of the  votes

12/5/2015

12 Comments

 
This was the election when the Green surge should have come through strong and clear. Instead we made a respectable showing but no breakthrough. This was not good enough.

On the streets the commonest view I came across was that "You can't trust any of them." and "I don't know which way to vote because they are all dreadful." Last minute voters reluctantly and through gritted teeth decided that they ought to stick with the Conservatives in case they were right and they really were close to fixing the economy. But it should have been possible to make a lot more progress in convincing people that we need a genuinely stable and sustainable long term economic policy and that the Greens have exactly that.

In Scotland an anti-austerity party won almost every seat. In England the Greens won one seat and less than 4% of the vote. It is no good blaming proportional representation for this and hoping that the big parties will someday be nice and give us our fair share. We have to question what we did right and what we did wrong and understand why so many people in Scotland accepted an argument that so many people in England wrote off as outside the mainstream and untrustworthy.

In my view the Green Party missed a big opportunity. We did so because we were good at speaking to each other and persuading those who were already inclined to agree with us. We were not very good at speaking to people who didn't already agree with us and being prepared to take their issues seriously and explain how we would deal with them.

I stood in Skipton and Ripon constituency. I lost track of the number of people who told me there was no hope in this area because it was solidly Tory and a rural constituency dominated by farmers who were hopelessly right wing. Fortunately a lot of local members refused to buy this argument. We put our case in language which ordinary people understood and won 3,116 votes which was 5.7% of those cast in a constituency where we hadn't put up a candidate for close on 20 years. This was a better result than was achieved by the party nationally and a much better result than Greens achieved in any Conservative voting constituency in the country.

We could have done a lot better if the national campaign had helped instead of hindering. At one of the early hustings I put the case that we needed to invest in creating a sustainable low energy economy  and that Britain could be at the forefront of the next wave of the industrial revolution. The argument went down really well. Then I came home turned on the radio and heard my leader trying to explain complex figures about how many houses we were going to build and at what cost. Not surprisingly she was tied up in knots and came across as yet another politician making promises that were so implausible that she couldn't even answer the simplest of questions about them.

No voter I spoke to believed any promise made by any politician. Any journalist with half a brain has an easy time of it when a politician starts to talk about exact numbers they will achieve. All the interviewer needs to do is to keep questioning the detail, keep probing at the realities of delivery and to test out the contradictions between laudable aims and the harsh reality of finances. I listened in horror to two interviews that Natalie gave and realised our vote had just been slashed in half. Unnecessarily. Because we tried to be like the all the others when the whole point is that we are not.

I went back out onto the streets and made the argument that the Greens were different and we didn't coach our leaders through focus groups so we were not ashamed if occasionally our leader lacked professional polish. It was a weak argument but it was the best I could do. I also tried saying that people should look at what our one MP had achieved and ask themselves whether they would like more of the same. That was a strong argument that worked well. But an awful lot of people told me they would vote Green if Caroline was our leader but wouldn't vote for a party led by Natalie.

Back out in the hustings we won hands down in the debates on austerity. The Conservatives argued that there was no money and austerity was necessary. I pointed out that they had let the Bank of England print £375 billion. They gave that huge quantity of money to the bankers to rebuild their balance sheets. So I asked why there was no money for the nurses, no money for teachers, no money to invest in rebalancing the economy onto sustainable businesses but there was lots of money for the bankers who created our problems in the first place. None of the other candidates could even begin to answer the question successfully.

Then I went home and watched our party political broadcast. It did nothing to counter the argument that there was no money. I did nothing to raise awareness about the desperately urgent environmental crisis we face. I did nothing to persuade people that there was a realistic alternative to inflicting austerity. It consisted of a silly song that made a few of our members giggle for a minute at their own joke and convinced absolutely no one.

On the streets not a single person mentioned to me our party political broadcast. When I asked friends and family they were utterly dismissive of it and said that they didn't understand it, didn't like it and the only good thing about it was that it was easy to ignore. For one of our major opportunities in years to put our case on prime time national television to a public that was looking for someone they could trust this was dreadful.

The broadcast came from a mindset which is the real reason why we didn't do as well as we should. We Greens have a dangerous tendency to speak to other Greens and to congratulate ourselves on having the most correct policies. We speak to each other in a language which makes sense to us but not to anyone else. No one on the streets spoke to me about neo-liberalism and very very few of them would have understood what I was talking about if I had.

We also have a dangerous tendency to write off those who disagree with us. I convinced several people who were utterly fed up with all the major parties to switch from UKIP to the Greens. I did so by taking their concerns seriously and arguing out the consequences of leaving Europe and the dangers of blaming immigrants for everything. Not a single one of the potential UKIP voters I spoke to was an out and out racist who was beyond rational argument.

I also convinced a number of conservative voters that the Conservative Party had ceased to believe in conserving things and that what they would get if they voted for them was not one nation conservatism but the Tea Party on steroids. It was, I admit, a whole lot easier to convince disaffected Liberal Democrats that their party didn't deserve their support and they should switch to the Greens. I was also, I admit, relatively easy to persuade long term Labour voters that their party had deserted them and the Greens were now the only radical party. But it is a huge mistake to only talk to their concerns and not to try to find out what is driving others to disagree with us and make sure we change their minds.

Over the next few years there is going to be a major opportunity in this country. We are about to have the most unpopular government there has been in my lifetime. The economy is not fixed. It is in a mess. They won't be able to explain why. The cuts won't stop at £30 billion they will be harder and deeper because of the economic failure. This won't be popular. There are two years until a vote on Europe. The Conservative Party will start to tear itself apart over whether to stay in or get out. This won't be popular.

In this set of circumstances a radical party that makes its arguments in ways that are accessible to everyone can lead the fight-back. Or it can indulge in talking to itself and doing so in language which only its own members understand.

What kind of future do you want the Green Party to have? The leading voice in the fight against endless austerity with a clear alternative of a sustainable economy? Or the place where the representatives of less than 4% of the electorate talk to each other and convince the rest of the population that they have nothing to say to them and could not possibly lead the country? The choice is up to you.


12 Comments
Anne-Marie Bremner
12/5/2015 03:45:58 am

Thanks for starting this blog, Andy. You raise lots of questions I've been pondering too. If The Green Party seemed like the only genuine solution to me, why did only 4% of the electorate agree (unless I'm a complete nutter, but I don't think this is the case).
Part of the lack of votes is possibly due to the fact that many voters feel that unless you vote for one of the 'big two' your vote is wasted and a change in system is needed to address that. I'm not sure that I 100% agree with Natalie Bennett's suggestion that we move the the Aussie system, but that's another issue.

I think that some of the problem is also due to perception and semantics. There is still an element of society that associates 'Greenies' with 'those extremists who'll do anything to prevent development, probably wear nose rings and ethnic print trousers and basically shouldn't be trusted as a realistic alternative. I know that the Green Party has evolved so much in recent years and this isn't true, but I'm afraid there are plenty of people in middle England who are still a little suspicious and certainly struggle to take 'Green' seriously as a political contender. You make some excellent points Andy, about talking seriously about how to tackle the key issues in many voters' minds.
Having worked in the environment sector for many years, I have this nagging concern that when we talk about 'The Environment', as word it still doesn't really mean anything very real to people. It isn't a word used in any context apart from mostly to make us feel guilty about something. It isn't a word that people appear to understand to mean anything relevant to their day to day lives. Sure, some animals somewhere or people I will never meet may not be very happy the impact of me driving my car (for instance) but is it really that bad?
"Watch - I get into my car, I drive it, I go home again, and lo! nothing has changed!!"
If we changed the conversation to make "The Environment" into - "The Place Upon Which Your Health and Happiness Depends" and discussed issues in more real terms about the direct impact upon us and our children I can't help feeling people will be more engaged. We need to tell the story about why you should care about The Environment (your health and happiness and by the way, our long term economic success).

I know that taking the direct-link approach can be fraught with danger as corporation are litigation-happy if you claim direct cause and effect between say: car exhaust and lung disease or fracking and drinking water contamination without very strong evidence, but the conversations do need to be more relevant and real, to tell the story, if you like.
I don't pretend to have all the answers (obviously, I'd have Ms Bennett's job if I did), but I thought I chuck my thoughts out there.

Advanced apologies for 'swearing' in this post, but UKIP did well in the recent election, mostly because they offered hope and solutions to people's every day problems (albeit based mostly on deceit, but then nobody successfully called them to account). They painted a picture of a better life and successfully shared a vision. Many voters obviously felt their vision was an unobtainable mirage based on nonsense, but plenty of people wanted to believe in that vision and there may be a lesson in there.

The Greens do have something very different to offer to the other parties. There is a genuine desire for a party with integrity, transparency and relevance to everyday lives. The brave thing to do is to be bold, inspiring, different, yet realistic and relevant.

Reply
andy brown
12/5/2015 04:13:37 am

Great set of comments. I refuse to be defined as a socks and sandals candidate. The reason we did well locally was that we had more people who were trained in economics or who had run businesses than the others and it showed. At the hustings they didn't know how to cope with it when I started quoting Winston Churchill and saying that he had a top rate of taxation of 90% and competed with the Labour Party over how many council houses they built. I was also quite ready to quote what Thatcher said about the urgency of tackling the environmental crisis if we were to have a secure economy. I don't care who said it - provided it helps us get a horribly urgent environmental crisis taken seriously then great. We have to refuse to allow ourselves to be defined as silly and get them shown up as reckless for ignoring a major problem and actually a major economic opportunity to be at the forefront of the transition to a low energy low waste economy.

Reply
Vivien Dawson link
13/5/2015 04:02:27 am

'I don't care who said it ' - exactly where I stand.
People need to stop fighting and debate. Every public debate was done on the Conservatives rules. The only person who spoke straight was Nicola Sturgeon and she won a lot of respect. She certainly knew her facts and was not led astray.
Well done for what you achieved and well done to James.
I look forward to people joining together to fight for common goals. We need to open people's eyes.

Sam Jones
12/5/2015 01:07:45 pm

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Andy.

Firstly, I should say that I attended the hustings at Ripon Cathedral and was extremely impressed with the way you presented yourself and your views on the Green Party policies. I entered the building somewhat undecided, but left as a staunch supporter of the Greens — as did other people I spoke to.

I completely agree that some of Bennett's radio interviews turned many potential people off from voting Green. In light of the points you raised at the hustings, I did my best to convince friends and family that the Green Party were indeed worthy of their vote.
Sadly, it was the notorious and disastrous BBC Radio 4interview by Bennett that put many people off.

As for the election broadcast, it really sent out the wrong message. Just as many people were beginning to think that the Greens may well be a viable option, they produce something like that. It was funny, but made the party to appear to lack credibility.

This election may well have been a missed opportunity, but I still hold out hope that as people become more aware of the environmental and economic problems in the future, the Greens will appear a much more attractive proposition.

Reply
andy brown
12/5/2015 05:18:06 pm

Thanks for nice comments about Ripon hustings and agree with all that you've said, particularly the implication that it is an important time to build a strong fight-back by being realistic and honest.

Reply
Tim Harper link
13/5/2015 06:33:49 am

Agreed, the idea idea is fine but the execution is lousy. A few of my thoughts on how to fix it as a green capitalist are at http://www.timharper.net/getting-from-being-green-to-voting-green/

Reply
Andy Brown
13/5/2015 07:04:53 am

Even if folks disagree with some parts of this they really should read it and take both the support and the criticism very seriously.
I think Tim is spot on about the need to come at this as serious scientists and I would add also as serious economists. We are not going to get the socks and sandals party into government and the environmental crisis is so serious and so urgent that we cannot allow recognising this to be pushed into the eccentric margins where it can be ignored.

Personally I think he is spot on about almost everything he says apart from GM. I believe that it is completely safe to eat but am really worried about release into the environment of things whose side effects are not fully understood when those things can reproduce. There is too long a track record of promises that all the consequences of the next phase of technology were understood and then discovering there were gaps in our knowledge. Neonicitinoids and bees is the latest example. DDT was the first. The risk to rewards ratio scares me

Reply
jamie
13/5/2015 08:54:21 am

100% could not agree more, as members of the Green Party there is a long fight ahead of us to do away with the less credible, hopelessly idealogocal party of the past and create a strong, credible party with robust economic plans and a hard line on the environment in the future. With you and an whole host of new, reforming members we can achieve it.

Reply
andy brown
13/5/2015 08:57:52 am

Thanks for really helpful and constructive feedback

Reply
stone elworthy link
13/5/2015 09:14:07 am

Congratulations on keeping your deposit and I really hope you can build on that and get elected in 2020.

I'm not sure your characterisation of QE is quite right though. QE is more a swap of money for bonds that are worth as much as the money being swapped for them. You almost made it sound like a straight fiscal transfer to the banks. I realise that QE did support asset prices and so did indirectly prop up the financial sector though. I found this Bank of England article really clear about QE : http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
I do agree with your general point though that our government has the capacity to deficit spend. We don't need to "find the money", we just need to use money responsibly to ensure a stable monetary system.
You mentioned getting sympathetic economists on board. I think this guy might be sympathetic and just the sort of person who could really help the green party: http://www.macroresilience.com/about/

Reply
Andy Brown
13/5/2015 09:22:31 am

You are, of course, absolutely right about how the mechanics of QE works. The Bank of England prints money electronically and uses it to buy back government bonds and other secure assets. This has the impact of pumping money into the banking system and creates liquidity which is then meant to enable the banks to lend.
One of the interesting side effects of this is that the Bank of England ends up owning a very significant proportion of the national debt. So much of this terrible mountain of debt that we keep being threatened with is actually owned by the British nation. Put simply we could simply cancel a lot of it without anyone really noticing and indeed the government has already done some of that on the quiet.
The import of all this is that there is actually money available and the question is whether to invest it for the future or fritter it away on rebuilding the banks balance sheets.
I admit that I have simplified this massively in order to get my central point across. At the hustings I got it down to one simple to understand concept. "The government have printed £375 billion and given it to the banks to help rebuild their balance sheets. When was the last time anyone rebuilt your balance sheet?"
I think this is a lot easier to understand than a feature about positive money in the middle of an election manifesto that the general public were supposed to be persuaded by!

Reply
stone elworthy link
14/5/2015 01:56:18 am

Good point well made.

You are so right to communicate the crucial essence of the argument.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Andy is an FE lecturer, a bee-keeper and lives in Cononley.

    Archives

    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014

    Categories

    All
    Austerity
    Business
    Economy
    Education
    Environment
    Fracking
    Housing
    Planning
    Technology
    War On Terror

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.