Happy birthday to Britain's fourth party (that's the Greens, not Ukip)

Nigel Farage's party would crave UK political representation to match that of the Greens.

As exotic locations go, a Coventry solicitors’ office does not rank very highly. Yet the motley group who met there 40 years ago tomorrow live on. What these 43 people created in 1973 is now established as the UK’s fourth biggest political party.

Affording such status to the Green Party may ignore Ukip’s current surge. But Ukip would crave UK political representation to match that of the Greens. The Green Party has 141 councillors, nearly four times as many as Ukip’s 39. While former party leader Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion to become the first Green MP at the last general election, Ukip leader Nigel Farage, running against only John Bercow of the main three parties, was beaten by an independent candidate dressed as a dolphin.

So, after two name changes and much mockery, the Greens have achieved something tangible. Where they have had success, it has come from recognising that no election is too small; the party’s development in Brighton serves as a model of local politics at its best. Years of campaigning and gaining councillors – and then control of the council – culminated in Lucas’s election in 2010. A similar strategy has led to electoral dividends in Norwich, where the Greens have 15 councillors and could gain their second MP in 2015.

Despite these successes, the party should feel frustration too. Progress since the general election could generously be described as anaemic. The anti-establishment streak of Lib Dem voters disillusioned with the coalition should be prime Green targets. But the Greens aren’t even fielding a candidate in Eastleigh, saying they will concentrate on the county council elections instead.

In great contrast to Ukip, they have barely impacted upon the national debate. While the Greens might justifiably complain that they have been featured less on programmes like Question Time, Ukip have, through persistence and Farage’s zeal, used their media showings to steer the public debate.

The Greens' failure has been in not creating a clear, easily understandable link between their ideas and solutions to Britain’s problems. People may not agree with Ukip’s solution of leaving the EU; at least everyone understands it. Until it can resolve this problem, the perception of the party as the preserve of the middle-class will remain.

Yet for all that the Greens must envy Ukip’s prominence in political discourse, so Ukip long for representation to rival theirs - and above all a Westminster presence. To Greens that – and the knowledge of how far they have come from that Coventry meeting – must be worthy of a birthday toast.

Caroline Lucas became the first Green MP when she won Brighton Pavilion at the 2010 general election.

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Show Hide image

Women-only train carriages are just a way of ensuring more spaces are male by default

We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

“A decent girl,” says bus driver Mukesh Singh, “won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy.”

Singh is one of four men sentenced to death for the rape and fatal assault of Jyoti Singh Pandey on a Delhi bus in 2013. His defence was that she shouldn’t have been on the bus in the first place. Presumably he’d have said the same if she’d been on a train. In the eyes of a rapist, all space is male-owned by default.

I find myself thinking of this in light of shadow fire minister Chris Williamson’s suggestion that woman-only train carriages be introduced in order to combat sexual violence on public transport. It’s an idea originally proposed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, only to be shelved following criticism from female MPs.

Now Williamson feels that a rise in sex attacks on public transport has made it worth considering again. Speaking to PoliticsHome, he argues that “complemented with having more guards on trains, it would be a way of combating these attacks”. He does not bother to mention who the perpetrators might be. Bears, vampires, monsters? Doesn’t really matter. As long as you keep the bait safely stored away in a sealed compartment, no one’s going to sniff it out and get tempted. Problem solved, right?

And that’s not the only benefit of a woman-only carriage. What better way to free up space for the people who matter than to designate one solitary carriage for the less important half of the human race?

Sure, women can still go in the free-for-all, male-violence-is-inevitable, frat-house carriages if they want to. But come on, ladies - wouldn’t that be asking for it? If something were to happen to you, wouldn’t people want to know why you hadn’t opted for the safer space?

It’s interesting, at a time when gender neutrality is supposed to be all the rage, that we’re seeing one form of sex segregated space promoted while another is withdrawn. The difference might, in some cases, seem subtle, but earlier sex segregation has been about enabling women to take up more space in the world – when they otherwise might have stayed at home – whereas today’s version seem more about reducing the amount of space women already occupy.

When feminists seek to defend female-only toilets, swimming sessions and changing rooms as a means of facilitating women’s freedom of movement, we’re told we’re being, at best, silly, at worst, bigoted. By contrast, when men propose female-only carriages as a means of accommodating male violence and sexual entitlement, women are supposed to be grateful (just look at the smack-downs Labour’s Stella Creasy received for her failure to be sufficiently overjoyed).

As long as over 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by men, there can be no such thing as a gender-neutral space. Any mixed space is a male-dominated space, which is something women have to deal with every day of their lives. Our freedoms are already limited. We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about personal safety. Each time it is proposed that women don’t go there or don’t do that, just to be on the safe side, our world gets a little bit smaller. What’s more, removing the facilities we already use in order to go there or do that tends to have the exact same effect.

Regarding female-only carriages, Williamson claims “it would be a matter of personal choice whether someone wanted to make use of [them].” But what does that mean? Does any woman make the “personal choice” to put herself at risk of assault? All women want is the right to move freely without that constant low-level monologue – no, those men look fine, don’t be so paranoid, you can always do the key thing, if you’ve thought it’s going to happen that means it won’t …. We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

In 1975’s Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller pointed out that the fact that a minority of men rape “provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation”. Whether they want to or not, all men benefit from the actions of those Brownmiller calls “front-line masculine shock troops”. The violence of some men should not be used as an opportunity for all men to mark out yet more space as essentially theirs, but this is what happens whenever men “benevolently” tell us this bus, this train carriage, this item of clothing just isn’t safe enough for us.

“A decent girl,” says the future rapist, “wouldn’t have been in a mixed-sex carriage late at night.” It’s time to end this constant curtailment of women’s freedoms. A decent man would start by naming the problem – male violence – and dealing with that. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.