There is quite a lot about Green Party politics that I agree with. Recycling matters, protecting local habitats matters, reducing pollution matters, and opposition to war is hardly a ridiculous position. Yet the party still often leaves me feeling as though I am listening to a sixth-form political debate.
I can say that with some affection because I used to be a long-haired, spotty sixth-former myself. The problem isn’t the ideals. It is that the arguments too often stop at the point where everyone has agreed what a nicer, fairer world would look like.
Politics has to go further than ethical or moral intent. It has to explain how a policy would work, who would deliver it, how much it would cost, where the money would come from, what might go wrong, and what compromises would be needed.
The Green Party has moved on a little from the old caricature of “let’s all recycle”, “stop the bombs” and “save our village pond”. It now puts forward much broader (and I mean broader) economic and social policies. Even so, I am often left with the impression that the ambition comes first and the operational reality is worked out afterwards.
This all matters because government isn’t a campaign meeting. Good intentions do not build houses, reform public services, transform an energy system or balance competing demands on public money. Those things require competent administration, credible funding and an acceptance that nearly every serious political decision creates losers as well as winners.
I don’t want the Greens to become less idealistic. Politics could probably do with a little more principle. But if they want to be taken seriously as a party of government, they need to show not only that their hearts are in the right place, but that their plans could survive contact with reality.
Got a thought on this? Share this post or say hello elsewhere online.