According to the Labour Party, Lancaster Green Party did a deal with the Conservatives. This is hotly denied. One possible lesson to be learned is beware fake news by Labour.
This would certainly make sense from Labour’s point of view. Greens are simply trying to occupy the ground they now hold. Far from being allies, Labour must get rid of Greens.
I see a vision based on eco-footprint taxes, supported by an unconditional basic income sufficiently generous to allow market forces to make sense, instead of being oppressive as they are now. This is not the only area where Conservative ideas make more sense than Labour in the ecological context, but to go into population aspects would take up too much space. Suffice it to say here that with a basic income. family size would be a choice.
But I wish to explore a more fundamental puzzle: the principles governing the practicality and viability of coalitions. If an election leaves no party in overall control, in what circumstances can the largest party offer others something to their mutual benefit.? The immediate anger by the Greens confirms the assumption that the parties may be too far apart to agree on sufficient common ground.
For many years this made sense. I was born into the Socialist Tribe. To my parents this assumption made sense in their day. I remain as firm in my social justice conviction as they were. But it is the world which has changed, not me. When I became politically aware in the late 1940s, hostilities had just been resumed between visceral enemies who had been forced to co-operate for four years, because they had had a common enemy: NAZI Germany. The removal of this enemy mean that each side could return to exactly the same fight as before
It is certainly true that the present Conservative Party has much in common with the pre-war Conservative Party which my father hated. But there is a new common enemy: ecological destruction. usually seen in the guise of climate change.
Why has the recognition of a common enemy, as in the1940s, not emerged?
The threat from this commoon enemy is permanent.
Perhaps the press is in the hands of Conservative sympathisers, but whatever the reason the neoliberal narrative holds sway: growth will soon resume and resolve any shortages. Anyone who needs handouts (assumed to be temprorary) can be demonised as scroungers. There is a serious flaw in this reasoning, but means tested benefits remain the norm.
To the ‘left’, the new logic of heeding ecological limits merely intensifies their demand for less inequality. Consequently there can be no alternative to deepening hatred of their opponents. Olive branches cannot be trusted. and the Conservatives show little or no sign of the new reality.
I have self-diagnosed as borderline Asperger’s., but my hope that at least others similarly afflicted (or as Greta would maintain, blessed) would not only ask the same question, but would, like me. look for answers.
Perhaps I am wrong in my belief that although the neoliberals are well on the way to winning the ‘haves versus ‘have nots’ conflict, they will be worse off in the long run if the destruction of the Ecosphere continues at its present rate.
I frequently refer to Wolfgang Sachs’ claim in 2003 that instead of ‘left’ v ‘right’, the world was now divided between those who accept ecological limits and those who don’t. It is still not true, but instead of continuing the same old fight, neither side seems interested in working towards Sachs’ vision, not even any suffering from Asperger’s syndrome.