17 Dec 2007

Green Tory Coalition

I have obviously rejected this as well...but curious to be asked!

Greens need to ally with Parties who oppose unfettered free market policies, which means we are likely to be pretty lonely...while I support the confidence and supply deal with the SNP and Scottish Greens, too much of a Trump Salmond love in could put this under threat.

Conservative support for Trident and war in Iraq are just two of dozens of policies that would count them.

Surprised though how many people in other political parties beat a path to our door, obviously we are having an effect!

Kennedy rejects deal here.

Still spooky to have Cameron on the phone....do I get a conference invite, soon it wont be just the left, I really will have spoken to every political party outside the far right!

8 comments:

Peter said...

Did David Cameron phone you up, Derek?

My take on this is that it is in his interests to raise our profile in order to increase the chances of "progressive" labour voters defecting to us. This then increases tory chances in marginal seats.

It's potentially a strange and perhaps unwanted symbiotic relationship - akin to Republicans paying for Green deposits in the USA.

Adam Apps said...

There is no confidence and supply deal between the Scottish Greens and the SNP. Isn't that the sort of thing you should know?

Derek Wall said...

If you want to be technical it is an arrangment which is looser than 'confidence and supply' and all the better for that...but it involves as far as I can see 'confidence' and 'supply', so I don't think we should be too nit picking...certainly a breath of fresh air compare to Ireland and alot of the SNP approach is good but Trump is surely a golf course too far

Adam Apps said...

It involves neither confidence not supply, so I don't think I'm being nitpicking. A confidence and supply deal guarantees a vote with the government on motions of confidence and on the budget - the Scottish Greens have made no such promises.

There is, in fact, no deal of any kind between the Greens and the Nats - just two parties in opposition to each other who are prepared to talk. That's not a special relationship; it should be the normal relationship between all parties in a PR system.

Adam Apps said...

Apologies to readers; I did of course mean that the Scottish situation involves neither confidence *nor* supply.

scott redding said...

With decentralisation as Cameron's focus, it gives us an opportunity to say that we want services to be local, involving and public, not local and privatised under a Tory government. We could agree with Cameron more easily on other things, for example, his interesting statements on men and rape a month ago:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=140334

or taking his nebulous idea of "social responsibility" and doing what we want with it.

MarcusOg said...

I completely agree that the Greens shouldnt ally themsleves with the Conservatives..... however this does not mean they should shun them.

At the end of the day its the capitalists that have the real power to really change things and make the world a greener place. If you refuse to negotiate with them you will get nothing done.

michael devon said...

It says on Jim Killock's blog that there was no approach from David Cameron (http://jim.killock.org.uk/?p=23). Yet this blog post seems to suggest that not only was there an approach, it was made directly to you ("still spooky to have David Cameron on the phone"), and that you took the decision to rebuff the approach, acting as leader despite your claimed opposition to them ("I have obviously rejected this as well").

Can you please tell us exactly what did happen with regard to this "progressive alliance," and on what grounds you claim the authority to accept or reject such a proposal?