If the Greens are offered a partnership to support the Labour-led government I think the decision is less straightforward than some people suggest. 1/13
Obviously we don’t know whether a deal will be offered or what it will be like. If Labour offers a deal that is not worth more than opposition then of course the Greens should reject it. But it’s not as obvious a decision as some are making out. 2/13
Importantly, it’s not necessarily true the Greens have *zero* leverage. There is context behind the simple Labour majority in the house. First, the PM says she wants to get on with things, wants stability and continuity of work that is underway. 3/13
Retaining the Ministers etc. that have been leading this work would help the PM “keep moving” on climate, conservation, cycling and road safety, gender equity, and preventing domestic and sexual violence for example. 4/13
The PM says she knows what a support partner can offer with skills and expertise and the Green MPs who have been working as Ministers and Under-Secretary make a strong case for that with their knowledge, relationships, experience and drive. 5/13
By contrast, leaving these people out of government gives the PM less access to their talents and possibly no access at all if they leave Parliament before 2023 when the PM might need them even more. 6/13
The PM wants to build the widest consensus possible and a partnership with the Greens helps her do that. The government also won’t want to be undermined by the Greens on difficult to solve problems like climate either. 7/13
Those advising the Greens against a partnership with Labour are in fact demonstrating the existence of this oppositional leverage themselves, while simultaneously apparently arguing the Greens have no leverage at all. 8/13
The PM says she wants to be transformational with “changes that stick” and that, as a result, might take a longer period of time to build. Having a solid and constructive relationship with a reliable support partner will help her make that case in 2023 and beyond. 9/13
There’s also a whole, democratic, member-based, internal Green process for working out what the party does right now and, while it’s normal for people try to influence that, it’s also reasonable to acknowledge that process is going to be nuanced and complex. 10/13
Being in opposition is definitely attractive - it’s simpler, easier and probably more conducive to policy development. So the Greens should carefully scrutinise any deal and definitely not go into partnership with Labour simply for the sake of wielding executive power. 11/13
But there’s also evidence from the evolution of Green vote share since 1999 that voters expect the Greens to do their bit when it comes to running the country. When the Greens have cooperated more closely with aspects of government, their vote share has tended to go up. 12/13
Given that this is the decade in which we must take dramatic and unprecedented climate action and that the next three years are the most important three years of this decade, do the Greens have time to not be taking some responsibility for government? 13/13

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Nash

Thomas Nash Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nashthomas

20 Oct
A thread on the evolution of Greens’ share of the vote since 1999 noting the various arrangements the Greens have reached with other parties. Many other factors of course in vote share movement, but could you argue voters want the Greens to do their bit in running the country?
1999-2002 = 5.16% / 7 MPs

Cooperation agreement offering confidence and supply in exchange for input to budget and legislation

Vote increases↗️

2002 = 7% / 9 MPs
2002-2005: cooperation agreement with no input into budget

Vote decreases↘️

2005 = 5.3% / 6 MPs
Read 9 tweets
9 Oct
I get the strategic voting arguments and I know they are important and compelling to many, but I find it hard to ask for a vote on the basis of anything other than what the party stands for. So I ask people to vote Green on the party’s merits. A thread on why I vote Green: (1/6)
The Greens have a different worldview to other parties. It’s based on social and environmental justice, non-violence and making decisions with those most affected. Compromise in government has been so painful for supporters precisely because of this difference in worldview. (2/6)
The Greens openly challenge some of the basic economic and social rules that exist to benefit those with the most power. The Greens work against commodification of housing, call for redistribution of wealth and think beyond cars to a transport future with cycling & rail. (3/6)
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!