Greens on board for a progressive government

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @chriswiggin: RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @RupertRead: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/ Yes, it really is #progressivemajority time!

RT @RupertRead: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/ Yes, it really is #progressivemajority time!

Greens on board for a progressive government – http://bit.ly/cjha4R (via @leftfootfwd)

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @rupertread: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/ It's #progressivemajority time

@andyforesthall – seen this?Left Foot Forward leftfootfwd

Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

Left Foot Forward – @TheGreenParty are on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/9qouoY #progressivemajority

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/ Yes, it really is #progressivemajority time!

My latest LFF piece, http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/ It's #progressivemajority time!

Surely you mean Green (singular) on board for a progressive government?

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

Rupert, how can Caroline be considered part of the progressive government if she is not actually part of the coalition? She will be someone the government doesn’t need, in terms of numbers, and so she will have no influence.

Piss. Pot. Get Off.

The way I see it, there would be a Lib-Lab coalition, and a ‘Confidence and Supply’ or ‘Co-operation Agreement’ deal with the smaller Parties. The Government needs to be able to rely on having a working majority. It can assemble that comfortably, from all the smaller Parties barring the DUP. Each MP less that it has is one step nearer failing in a confidence vote, or at least not being able to govern very much or do very much.

The media are beside themselves with anger that Gordon Brown has wrongfooted them again. Dimbleby all but got up and strangle Alistair Darling for not allowing Cameron to form a government. Oh the loyalty to the Bullingdon Boys. Sky are throwing a fit.

The Labour traitors are out again critecising Brown and calling their own party, the party of loosers. If the progressives do not stop this tendency to stab their own colleagues in the back, the labour party will not win elections for the next generation.

Left Foot, please, please put on the live chat tonight. The circumstances demands it.

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

“a ‘Confidence and Supply’ or ‘Co-operation Agreement’ deal with the smaller Parties”

Rupert, that isn’t stable. LibLab alone constitute a minority government. To get a working majority they need the smaller parties to do more than C&S or CA – otherwise they will be like the SNP in Scotland. Speaking of which, the SNP are suggesting a formal coalition to get a majority. Why do you reject this model, as it makes the government stable and actually gives Lucas more influence as she is part of the government and could potentially receive a junior ministerial post or Committee chairmanship?

@ Lady J, good call on the live chat. I think they should do a rolling one, until there’s a government!

Cannot believe how disgustingly right-wing and scumbaggish John Reid is.

The thing is that Lucas’s vote isn’t strictly needed for the Progressive Alliance to get a majority, their NI sister parties and the Nats give them more than enough to get a majority. She would only really be needed in case the Nats withdrew, or if Labour rebels kicked up a fuss. I think she stands to benefit much more from being in the Alliance than it benefits from having her – i.e. getting credit for stabilising government, being pragmatic, and being given a junior cabinet position in DECC or a committee Chairmanship.

RT @Andbwell: RT @sianberry: Interesting thoughts on Green role here: http://bit.ly/90HVCn (seems an intriguing possibility)

Guys, please email/telephone your local Lib-Dem MPs/Counsellors and remind them that if it was not for us, the Labour Voters tactical vote that helped many Lib-Dem MPs into power, and that without us, the Lib-Dem’s number of votes would have been absymal.

Mark, ‘Confidence and Supply’, or even a weaker arrangement such as the ‘Co-operation Agreement’ that the Greens have with the SNP in Scotland, can be perfectly stable. As the Holyrood experience of the last 3 years proves.
The Green Party absolutely does not have enough in common with the old growthist Parties to join them in formal coalition. But stopping Tory cuts, and gaining PR: that would be a ‘Yes’ to a #progressivemajority arrangement of some kind.
The arithmetic is very tight. We can help it happen – without joining a coalition, which is out of the question (Caroline has quite rightly ruled it out. The Party would never wear it, for one thing.).

Ditto Mark. Dont get me started on Diane Abbot.

We want live chat; we want live chat, we want live chat, we want live chat.

[...] More… [...]

RT @leftfootfwd: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/daN76d

Rupert, as I said, the Green MP is not needed for the majority. She will only be called upon if the Nats withdraw or there is a Labour rebel. Other than that she will be ignored. You can wave your CA or C&S in the Progressive Government’s face, but what use have they got for it? Like I said, she has more to gain (and by extension, your party has more to gain) by being in the Government than out of it.

Either you nail your colours to the mast, and hope for some influence, or you’re just another Galloway, I’m afraid! They don’t need you, you need them. Also, please stop writing in hashtags within blog posts, it looks a bit silly.

Also: “growthist”? Handbags at dawn

Lady J: Anti-PR MPs like Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott prove the old Labour Left is useless.

Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/bkmKVs #ConDemNation #ukelection #ge2010 #ge10 #TakeItBack

RT @hare_wood: Greens on board for a progressive government http://bit.ly/bkmKVs #ConDemNation #ukelection #ge2010 #ge10 #TakeItBack

Interesting thoughts on Green role here: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/

[...] Update: Caroline’s in for Confidence and Supply. [...]

RT @sianberry: Interesting thoughts on Green role here: http://bit.ly/90HVCn (seems an intriguing possibility)

If Lib-Lab-SDLP-Alliance-SNP-Plaid comes into being, they don’t need a Green MP – if it doesn’t, this is meaningless.

Caroline Lucas was never sabotaging a ‘progressive coalition’ in the eyes of anyone with Maths GCSE – but it is presumptuous to assume it’s her decision as to whether or not she is invited into a coalition.

Not all that many Lib Dems I speak to are keen on her getting a ministerial job, or being involved at all. The Greens are a party that take Lib Dem votes from the Left, and contributed to the loss of no less than Evan Harris. Elevating them to government after a week of being in Parliament, when the Lib Dems have had to wait a century, might not be as popular at Cowley Street as is suggested here.

She will be welcome to vote with a progressive coalition government if she wants, but the idea she can trade in her solitary and largely unnecessary vote for a government job is not viable.

Yeah, Mark – Like I need to take lessons from you on what sounds silly and what doesn’t…
I’ve explained the situation, but you don’t seem to want to listen. To have some kind of margin of security, in case of illness / defection / so as not to be held over a barrel by Nats wanting pork, etc. a ‘progressive majority’ needs to be as large as possible. Furthermore, a Green in on the Agreement would add much-needed legitimacy to what is otherwise a ‘government of losers’.

[...] Left Foot Forward reports that Caroline Lucas would support a Labour/Liberal coalition, while not formally joining [...]

Rupert – I don’t entirely buy it, because I don’t think a 1 vote safety actually means that much, let alone enough to make concessions to get, but you need to respond to the more important point: what makes you think that the Lib Dems would welcome the Greens into coalition?

The Greens and Lib Dems are often in competition for the left-of-Labour, environmentally-friendly bourgeois vote, and in the 2010 General Election, you cost them a few seats.

I’ve added the Green vote totals to the recent LibDemVoice post – I think you cost them about 6 seats by standing where you didn’t stand a chance of winning. 3 of these seats went to the Conservatives. How much do you think they’re going to want to thank you by giving your leader a ministerial portfolio before she’s made her maiden speech?

NEAR MISSES
Ashfield 192 (0.4%)

Edinburgh South 316 (0.7%) – [Greens got 881]

Hampstead & Kilburn 799 (1.6%) – [Greens 759 / T Omond 123]

Oldham East & Saddleworth 103 (0.2%) 

Sheffield Central 165 (0.4%) – [Greens 1556]

Swansea West 504 (1.4%) – [Greens 404]
Camborne & Redruth 66 (0.2%) – [Green 581]

Chesterfield 549 (1.2%) – [Green 600]

Oxford West & Abingdon 176 (0.3%) – [Green 1184]

Rochdale 889 (1.9%) 

Truro & Falmouth 435 (0.9%) – [Green 858]

http://www.libdemvoice.org/seat-we-just-missed-just-won-19374.html

Morus,

a) stop the squabbling. There’s loads of stuff we disagree on, that’s why we have different parties. But now the election has happened, it’s time to try and work though that.

b) no one is talking about a cabinet position for a party with only one seat. That would be disastrous for Greens, as we’d immediately lose the voice in Parliament we only just won. Similarly, no one is saying that she will be able to extract substantial policy asks in exchange for her support.

What Rupert is saying, and I said at http://www.brightgreenscotland.org is that Caroline should use her voice as leader of the 4th UK wide political party – and her one vote in the Commons, to help make the case that the majority voted for a political program of the centre, not of the right (or, unfortunately, the proper left).

No one is pretending that this will swing the whole negotiations. However, keeping the Tories out is the right thing to do, and she is right to make it clear that she is happy to help with that, if such a position arises.

Adam

Adam – I’m not squabbling. I couldn’t care less who forms the next government.

I’m simply pointing out that for all the self-aggrandizement, that the Green party vote is mathematically irrelevant to a potential Lib-Lab-SDLP-Alliance-SNP-PC coalition, and so what Caroline Lucas chooses to do is her own affair.

To assume the other parties will welcome yet another faction into the mix, let alone one that has cost them seats, is perhaps a little arrogant. To claim that the Green party are ‘needed for legitimacy, to avoid it looking like a coalition of losers’ (Rupert’s comment), is a little bizarre (the Green’s dropped in share of the vote, unlike the Lib Dems). To then claim that Lucas should play a ‘leadership role like Alex Salmond’ (main article) is patently absurd.

Lucas should probably support the progressive coalition, but it’s a matter for her. The idea that her vote means anything to the formation of that coalition is fantasy.

For the record, Lucas leads – not as you said the 4th UK-wide political party – but only the Green Party of England and Wales. Even if she could claim the votes of the Scottish and Northern Irish parties, she would still only be leading the 7th largest party (after Lib-Lab-Con-BNP-UKIP-SNP) based on UK total votes.

By all means argue about what Lucas should or should not do, but this is a reality based blog, and that means not inflating the Green party well beyond their due size.

[...] Greens on board for a progressive government | Left Foot Forward [...]

I don’t think adding a party which took 37 years to get 1 MP into the coalition would make it look any less like one of “losers”, it will add to that impression – a coalition of all the losers and little irrelevant parties.

But Morus is right, Lucas may vote with the coalition but she is not needed to form any part of any kind of agreement, so yeah, this whole post is a bit self-aggrandizing – “wow, Caroline has so much power, wow!” No, she doesn’t. If she has any progressive leanings she will ensure the government doesn’t collapse. But otherwise she has nothing to offer. She cannot influence the coalition in any way. If it does come down to her 1 vote, and she thinks her own career or concerns are more important than those of the 99% of the electorate that didn’t vote for her and all the other MPs, there will be hell to pay.

Short version: she’s not needed, but if she ever is, she better not try to bring down the government.

@mycrippledeagle Moar on it haha http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/greens-on-board-for-a-progressive-government/

Should the headline not read “Green On Board”? There is only one Green afterall…………

I’m with Adam – we need at this time to be looking for common ground. I’m surprised Morus that you ‘couldn’t care less’ who forms the next govt. That suggests that you may be on the wrong blog, here. LeftFootForward is with Lord Ashdown and many others, including it seems most LibDem members and certainly most LibDem voters in thinking that the LibDems are a Party of the centre-Left (see http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/lib-con-coalition-would-be-an-electoral-gift-to-labour/ ).
If you want PR, and you want to stop the dismantlement of the welfare state, then you should want a #progressivemajority rainbow alliance.
The Green Party (and the Alliance Party) are the only Parties that gained seats, outside the Conservatives. This is a small but real way in which they help break the ‘coalition of losers’ tag, and offer something fresh and now, something with momentum.

I’ve just sent this to Lord Ashdown. It’s relevant I think to Mark’s latest (hostile, as usual) comment:

Dear Paddy;
You probably won’t remember me. We used to correspond many years ago, when you were Leader and I was an LibDem activist. When you quit and were succeeded by Kennedy, I immediately quit the Party (and am now a Green Party Councillor (and blogger)). In other words: I have always had a high regard for you.
However, I confess that I was disturbed that this morning on R4 you were calling for a LibLab minority govt, excluding the smaller progressive Parties. A serious error on your part, I believe. Why? Because the LibDems and Labour need to make a ‘Confidence and Supply’ arrangement or a ‘Co-operation Agreement’ with most or all the smaller Parties (excluding of course the right-wing DUP), to produce stability. You will never successfully answer the critics who say that a Lib-Lab coalition will inevitably produce unstable government, unless you bring most or all of the Nats, the SDLP, the Alliance, the independent Unionist and the Green Party somewhere under the tent, via some such arrangement. We need a #progressivemajority government.
To have some kind of margin of security, in case of illness / defection / death, and so as to prevent random continuous holding-over-a-barrel by some of the smaller Parties, a ‘progressive majority’ needs to be as large as possible. Furthermore, a Green in on the Agreement (and the Alliance Party MP) would add a little dose of much-needed legitimacy and freshness to what is otherwise going to get called a ‘government of losers’.
The Social Liberal Forum statement on the ‘rainbow alliance’ progressive majority option (http://bit.ly/cVtSfV ) recognises the importance of this. Why don’t you? I hope you will reconsider, and see that unless people like you get behind the ‘rainbow’ option today, then a Tory-LibDem arrangement is inevitable. Which we all know is what you don’t want – and quite rightly so. To stop disastrous immediate cuts, and to gain PR, it’s time to take this step.
Best, Rupert Read

Remember, Mark, that the government will (quite rightly) have no security not to be voted out if it has made no effort whatsoever to respond to the concerns of the SNP (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8674000/8674198.stm ), Plaid, Greens, etc. As Riddell pointed out on Today this morning, you have to have some kind of Agreement (I think Riddell over-estimates how difficult it would be; he fails to take into account the strong anti-Tory sentiment that would bind the Parties together): http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8674000/8674182.stm

[...] is back on the cards. Formal negotiations between Labour and Lib Dem are now taking place, the Green party appear to be supportive, and so do the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. But if it comes to pass, [...]