Here comes the future. Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

Why I'm voting Green

I'm voting tactically in this election - for the Green Party.

As the general election draws ever closer, we seem to hear more and more about the benefits and shortcomings of that old First Past The Post enemy: the tactical vote. Minority parties have been as vocals as the UK’s main parties in expressing their opinions on the subject. While all parties stand against it in one way or another, I believe that this year’s election is ushering in a new kind of tactical vote — one that I’m adopting.

As a left-leaning, twenty-something voter, political tradition would encourage my tactical vote to go to Labour. This same line of thinking also claims that a vote for a minority party is a vote wasted. These views are symptoms of the disease in our democracy; that belief that, in reality, we have a choice of only two parties. But I live in Norwich South. The Norwich Greens are an active and wide-reaching force in my community, and my constituency is one of the key seats that the Green Party is targeting in next month’s election. For this seat, in this election, my vote goes to them.

Looking at the Green manifesto, a lot of the party’s core values are in line with my own understanding of society and beliefs about humans. In contrast to every other party running, I think the Greens have the right idea about anti-austerity economics, the NHS and education to name just a few areas. That alone is not enough, however, to convince me that a Green government — which is pretty much impossible in this election anyway — would be a desirable outcome this time around.

The Green Party has been visibly overwhelmed by events in the lead up to May 2015. Membership growth from 14,179 to over 55,000 in just a year has left the party punching above its weight impressively but haphazardly — a phenomenon perhaps best demonstrated by Natalie Bennett’s infamous ‘brain fade’. From a policy perspective, I’m much more interested in hearing about the feasibility of a citizen’s income than I am in hearing about the plight of British hedgehogs or that our primary defense plan should be striking a deal on climate change. Yes, I certainly have my doubts about the Green Party’s ability to govern on a national level.

If I’m honest, I also have doubts about the Green candidate for Norwich South. I’m sure Lesley Grahame is very nice, but that doesn’t detract from the fact she looks like a lady who’s a little too fond of cats, and that she seems to film her YouTube campaign videos in the loos of some nondescript local authority building. In a city with two universities, more hipsters than you can count, and a strong culture of youth activism, the Greens probably didn’t choose their candidate wisely if they’re trying to engage their key demographic of young, left-leaning, may-or-may-not vote electors.

But, tactically speaking, a vote for the Green Party has a lot of pros for somebody like me. The Greens’ unabashed left-wing approach and their radical political style is what has convinced me that my vote won’t be wasted on a minority party. A vote is about more than a party or a candidate; it’s about putting voices in government who represent the broadest range of different people and perspectives possible. Yes, an electoral system that favours two parties and encourages tactical voting in its traditional form is flawed and undemocratic. But it’s all we have for the moment, and I hold the view that diversity in government is the only way that we can maintain a (somewhat) functioning representative democracy.
So in this election, I’ll be following Natalie Bennett’s advice and voting for what I believe in -- even if that’s not one candidate in particular or a party I’d like to see form a majority government. My tactical vote is a vote for democracy and a vote for a new age of radical politics. And in 2015, that vote goes for the Greens.

 

Lauren Razavi is a freelance columnist and features writer. Follow her on Twitter @LaurenRazavi.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496