freelanceintellectual.com

photo: Green Party

It was quite fun that the Green Party used, instead of a leader, to have "principal speakers". It seemed very cooperative, non-hierarchical and contrary of them. But it made no sense, really. Leadership is important in politics, whether at the local government level or in Parliament, and refusing to have one leader deprives the public of an essential practical means of accountability, as well as depriving yourself of initiative and coherence. For what it's worth I also think the Greens' system of enforced gender parity - the two principal speakers had to be a man and a woman - was in principle objectionable. I think people have reached the stage - certainly Green members and activists will have reached it - where moral pressure will prevent continuous, uniform male leadership of any political party, and that the Greens' system would have prevented them from having two women speakers, when those two might have been the outstanding candidates. Silly.

Now, though, they've opted for a single leader, and their prospective candidate for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, has won the selection contest overwhelmingly and unsurprisingly, since she's by far their most recognised politician and best chance of getting anywhere near Parliament - they came third last time with a different candidate, only six thousand votes behind the Labour winner. It's not inconceivable, if the Greens have the sense to focus entirely on her and on winning LibDems over to their cause, that she could even win. I think choosing her is a sign that the Greens are getting serious. They'll all hate Caroline Lucas soon: I think an organisation like the Greens (if organisation is the right word) is almost certainly full of natural rebels and railers against authority, and that the task facing Lucas is precisely to inject that direction into the Greens that will rile them. But she'll do them good. I've got some advice for her, though.

I think the Greens should stick to their core issues and message and should avoid non-environmental talk wherever possible. First, because in spite of the theory that national parties need views on everything, they just don't. Everyone knows we won't have a Green government, and the Green Party wastes its time if it has strong views on, say, hospital management, banking regulation or gambling. Its identity, if you like its brand, is too important to be diluted with non-core attributes all over the place. Look at these e-hustings, for example, between Lucas and her leadership opponent: why go on about Israel and domestic violence? That sort of stuff is activists' politics, not voters' politics. The people of Brighton Pavilion will not support Lucas because of those issues, and there's so much to talk about that does connect to the Greens' political core - energy policy, transport, housing, relations with Russia - that there's no need to go off on frolics elsewhere. To stick to your strong themes is not to accept mere pressure-group status; it is to accept the reality of having only relatively small media exposure, the strategic importance of developing a unique appeal and the need to focus your effort.

Second, I'm afraid the Greens have retained the rule that the deputy leader must be the opposite sex to the leader. I've already said what I think of that, but I think it's not just silly but wasteful and self-destructive when Siân Berry is probably the second most recognised Green. I'm not saying she should be deputy leader - she may not have wanted to be, and others might have better ideas or may need to be put forward. But even if she were the best choice there'd have been no point in her standing, would there? The same goes for Jenny Jones and Jean Lambert.