Questions and Answers

Doesn’t our present structure show a lack of trust in our key representatives?

Wouldn’t a single leader be more accountable?

Wouldn’t a single leader help get our message across to a wider audience?

Aren’t Green politicians acting as leaders for their constituents?

Isn't the title 'Principal Speaker' a bit too incomprehensible for most people?

Wouldn’t having a single leader attract more media coverage?

Can the Party choose to have two gender balanced co-leaders?

Hasn’t Conference repeatedly had a majority vote in favour of a single leader?

The principal speakers and other Party officers are surely just as fallible as a leader would be?

This is only a simple change to the principal speaker job titles – what’s all the fuss about?

Isn't the Party a bit too disorganised without the direction provided by a leader?

The Green Party has a relatively small membership and few elected members – couldn’t a leader make a big difference?

Time is running out to save the planet - couldn't a leader help us to make progress faster?

Doesn’t our present structure show a lack of trust in our key representatives? How are the electorate to trust us if we don’t trust ourselves?

All those who represent the Green Party in the public arena carry a great deal of responsibility and require the trust of the Party membership. Our opposition to a single leader is precisely because we DO trust those representatives - all those who are elected to public office as well as those who are elected as Party speakers.

Wouldn’t a single leader be more accountable?

Not at all. The proposal actually creates less accountability, because the ‘Leader’ would be seen to be more responsible for the direction of the Party than they have the constitutional power to be. Accountability for executive decisions currently lies with the Party Executive. Having someone called a ‘Leader’ will mean that the public, the media and Party members will assume the accountability for those decisions rests with the leader. The proposal only gives the leader the same constitutional authority as, for example, the Local Party Support Coordinator.

Wouldn’t a single leader help get our message across to a wider audience?

We don’t think so. In order to appeal to a diverse society, we should be aiming to have diversity amongst our public representatives. One single leader can only stifle that, and reduce our ability to reach a wider audience.

Aren’t Green politicians acting as leaders for their constituents?

Green politicians do indeed take a leadership role – but they work collectively with other (hopefully Green) politicians. Both as a Party and when elected, we should be working for a system of government in which everyone can participate more in decision making.

Isn't the title 'Principal Speaker' a bit too incomprehensible for most people?

The media are quite capable of making job titles intelligible to the public. Principal speakers are often described as "speakers" or "spokespersons" for the Party and the media have no difficulty in describing titles and roles of public figures with unconventional titles when necessary. We’re not wedded to the title of Principal Speaker, but equally we believe that any alternative title should make it obvious that the role is that of a spokesperson, rather than a leader.

Wouldn’t having a single leader attract more media coverage?

The media are likely to give the Green Party the coverage we earn through our results. Many smaller parties than us have a single leader without that person becoming a household name or a significant draw for the media. As the Party becomes more successful, the media will want to feature more people who have the legitimacy to represent it - both spokespeople and elected members. The idea that we should only expect one person to get any coverage lacks ambition. We should be aiming to attract far more media attention than can possibly be handled by one person - just as the larger parties do.

Can the Party choose to have two gender balanced co-leaders rather than a single leader and deputy?

Not in this referendum. The proposal is to create a single Leader position, with an option for two candidates of different genders to put themselves forward for the position as a job-share if they wish, in which case they will be called Co-leaders (should they be successful in winning the ballot for the post). However, the membership would not be able to stipulate that candidates have to share the job equally and act as co-leaders - that will be down to the preference of the individual candidates themselves.

Hasn’t Conference repeatedly had a majority vote in favour of a single leader?

No, it hasn’t. At least six motions since 1998 have attempted to change the Principal Speaker titles or roles. All have been defeated - mostly very heavily. In Autumn 2005, a motion to change the titles to Co-leaders did receive more than 50% of a card vote. The card vote was called by supporters of the proposal (who had come armed with proxy votes, unlike its opposers) after it became clear that the vote on the floor of Conference was not going to go their way. This vote still failed by a significant margin to achieve the 2/3 vote necessary to change the constitution.

The principal speakers and other Party officers are surely just as fallible as a leader would be?

Yes, of course. But responsibility is shared and no one person can be held to be 'bigger than the Party'. A single leader would be more vulnerable to media attack, and the Party could be held hostage to statements made on its behalf by the leader.

This is only a simple change to the principal speaker job titles – what’s all the fuss about?

Titles such as Party Leader have commonly understood meanings amongst the press and the public. A 'Leader' without executive authority will soon be seen as weak and lacking in credibility. This, in turn, will lead to pressure on the Party's decision making bodies to reflect the wishes of the Leader in order to justify their assumed position. The result is likely to be unaccountable decision making, happening in order to safeguard the leader's perceived authority with the media rather than fully considered decisions taken in the best interests of promoting the Party's vision.

Isn't the Party a bit too disorganised without the direction provided by a leader?

The Green Party’s current structures may not be perfect, but the proposed leader roles would do nothing to resolve any real or perceived weaknesses in the structure. We have a robust constitution and a well-established system of democratic decision-making and policy formulation. We also have a well-defined structure which sets out roles, responsibilities and accountability of officers and bodies in the Party. Improving our effectiveness will come from collective effort, as well as from increasing our resources and membership. Creating a leader wouldn’t be a ‘silver bullet’ to magically bring this about.

The Green Party has a relatively small membership, few elected members and is largely dependent on voluntary effort – couldn’t a leader make a big difference?

The Green Party has made steady and visible progress over the last decade: A larger membership and MEPs, London Assembly members and many more councillors elected around the country. A lot has been achieved on very limited resources. But this has been down to the talents, commitment and hard work of many people. No one person could possibly hope to achieve any of these gains simply on account of being called a leader. Of course, we need to continue making progress, but this will come about by attracting and retaining members, and by increasing their activism and participation. Getting more councillors elected requires more committed people who are willing and able to represent the Green Party in the public arena. Weakening our commitment to direct participation by electing a single leader is certainly not going to help.

Time is running out to save the planet - couldn't a leader help us to make progress faster?

Copying the other parties’ ‘top down’ approach is no answer to the pressing social and ecological problems facing humanity. We need to engage with local communities and to encourage participation and shared responsibility. We need to get more Greens elected and to work for ‘root and branch’ change in government. We are making council gains across the country precisely because of grassroots activism. All of us are impatient for political transformation but we mustn't make the mistake of change for change's sake. Creating a leader would be a hasty decision. We need to reaffirm our philosophy of participation and empowerment. Less haste, more speed.