Subverting the economic paradigm

Having slightly recovered from conference I'll try to round it up and cover some of the issues I've missed.

On the whole it's been an enjoyable and instructive experience. Whilst a couple of the debates could have been conducted in far more fraternal manner it's actually a good sign that there is a bit of argie bargy and vociferous discussion. A party that agrees and has consistent consensus year on end would be one that's ideologically dead.

The fact that debate was carried out in a less ideological, more thoughtful way was really useful and helped generate a more creative debate. For instance, during the education debate someone got up and went through the reasons why people choose to go down the city academy route. He didn't waste much of his time putting in loads of caveats around why he opposed them, although he clearly did, but he thought it would be useful to those present to hear the arguments as they are actually put. In a hard left meeting it's often difficult to do this sort of thing without a number of "robust interventions" designed to "come back" on the speaker with the clear implication that just by understanding and stating the opposition's arguments you somehow agree with them.

It was also very useful to meet other bloggers there, like new Female Principle Speaker Sian Berry (who was victim of a rather sexist, if well intentioned article in the Independent), Natalie Bennett (whose brain is so enormous it pulls small planets into its orbit), Peter Sanderson (who, as I suspected, was a thoroughly like-able chap), Derek Wall (whose voice gave way at the beginning of conference), and Matthew "silver tongue" Sellwood (who alone out of this list has yet to give his report of conference - well worth reading the other perspectives). I'm sure there were other bloggers there, and if you've reported on conference feel free to link to it from my comments box - I'd be interested to see what you thought.

Some the debates I've not covered and really should include were for a total smoking ban (which some of you will be surprised to hear I abstained on due to a long and very interesting discussion with Jessica Goldfinch from Norwich who was totally opposed), for stronger policy on taxing high earners (strengthening an already held commitment to progressive taxation), a great discussion on repealing the anti-trade union laws which passed with around six delegates against (which shows just how big the right of the party really is), although we didn't get to the motion proposing the abolition of MI5. I'll discuss prostitution when I've more time to do it justice I think.

In terms of tendencies at conference there is obviously the rambunctious grouping I've mentioned. There's also the media savvies, there's a layer of people who seem to have come because they passionately believe in a particular policy and want to get it discussed and passed, there's also those who came to see the old friends who come every year and there's also the constitutionalists. At the beginning of conference I think I made the mistake of merging the obstreporous grouping with the constitutionalists in that both seemed more concerned about the debate on the controversial motions taking place at all rather than discussing the issues.

There are people like John Norris (who has a very quiet voice, high trousers and frequently wears a hat) who I unfairly thought were wreckers and now, having spoken to him, I realise that pedantry is his first love rather than ego and he is actually a rather pleasant chap. Obviously he still belongs to a tendency I'm not so keen on, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that he, and a couple of others did behave appropriately during the debates and I must ensure I remember to differentiate between those who took a view I didn't agree with and those who choose to express those views in a totally inappropriate way, which in the end turns out to be a tiny handful of people - the kind most organisations can find themselves blighted with.

On diversity there are two issues really. First the ethnic mix of the Green Party is predominantly white and this needs some thought as to why that is. Secondly although women are very well represented in the party and in conference - far better than most (if not all) other parties in fact - there was a massive disparity when it came to women standing for position. The new national executive (GPEx) is an overwhelmingly male body, and this is quite unrepresentative of the party as a whole. Interestingly when speakers mentioned this and talked about encouraging women to stand (a few people mentioned the idea of quotas too) quite a few women seemed totally opposed even to the idea of encouragement - I think on the basis that they felt it would be patronising. What ever the solution it certainly is a problem that we should try to address, but perhaps the first step is to ask women why they don't want to stand for these positions. There's lots of theories, which may or may not be sound, but until we do some research they are just that.

It maybe that some of the difficulties are insurmountable, but if there are barriers to women standing for positions, or just cultural attitudes that it more difficult then we really should know about it and set about making the executive as diverse as the membership.

PS My email backlog is getting ridiculous - so apologies if I haven't replied to something urgent - hopefully I'll get round to it!

Review madness

Everyone must join the Green Party now and you must all come to the next conference, and then you must all come to the Saturday Review. It's bonkers and I don't think I've laughed so much in ages.

Essentially those at conference do little skits of their own devising - often based on events at conference. Cllr Rupert Read sang a Joan Baez number, which was very brave unaccompanied, Peter Cranie compared but also spontaneously burst into "message from America" when the crowd heckled, numerous humorous skits were performed.

From memory Green Party top trumps, a brilliant physical comedy foursome, a parody of the Monty Python "I had it so tough" sketch but turned into an "I'm more green than you" featuring just classics as "Yes, recycling your waste paper is alright if you're satisfied to be a eco-terrorist servant of the multi-nationals" and many many others. Now I was really impressed - comedy is very hard to do (well) and there wasn't a single act that didn't have its moments. Even the guy who sang the IRA song was great.

Having been scarred by political cabaret in the past I did get myself safely anesthetised first, which may have helped, but it is certainly something you have to witness. Bloody brilliant.

The hustings of a host of uncontested posts

All good elections require a decent hustings don't you think? Of course you do - like me you're utterly reasonable.

Well the Green Party also agrees, agrees to the extent that even if posts are uncontested there is still a hustings for the posts (and why not? They put Re-Open Nominations (RON) on every ballot paper, which is always an option)

This may be a technical detail too far for the blog but the election process works like this (I think), before conference you can submit yourself for election to a specific national post. If at the close of the deadline for nominations the post is contested by more than one candidate it will be put out in a postal ballot to the membership. If there is just one, or God forbid no volunteer for the job then nominations re-open and the election takes place at conference.

Of the 13 posts we heard hustings 'debates' for two were actually contested. The male principle speaker (which goes out to the members) and external communications. The two candidates for ExComms were Penny Kemp, who I believe I may have mentioned in passing, and Jim Killick who I probably haven't mentioned but was the current post holder and is one of the most capable and far-sighted Green Party members I met all weekend... I bet you can't guess who I voted for.

Anyway, Jim received 122 votes to Kemp's 87 - poor old RON got just 6. Hurrah! If PK had been elected it would have effectively created a factional friction in the exec. they'd have been a external communications person who was unable to work with certain sections of the exec effectively and it was totally irresponsible of her to stand in the first place - based purely on a targeting of Jim Killick because he knows what he's doing and approaches politics with a degree of professionalism and seriousness that Kemp mistakes for being of the right.

Dressing like a normal person is not right wing, it's kind of part of the job description for someone who has to constantly deal with the media. Incidentally, when I congratulated him on his win he was most magnanimous and said it would not have been a disaster if PK had been elected - at which of course I snorted and hrrrumpffed - but he knows his manners, give him his due.

Other RON's of note. Poor old Tim Summers got most RONs with 42 to his 162 votes (which is more than 20% of the vote for RON, hmmm) and Peter Cranie (who keeps getting tipped for the top job, not that there is one) got least RONs with 4 to his 206 votes.

Sound... very sound.

Green Left fringe meeting

Saturday night was time for the Green Left fringe meeting. I think this is the first time Green Left has made an official appearance at conference and it was pretty good in my opinion - certainly the biggest fringe I attended.

Green Left is an "ecosocialist" current inside of the Green Party (please don't ask me what ecosocialist means beyond being both ecological and socialist, I have no idea). This is not a Workers Spatula type affair, it's got the backing of key Green Party figures like Richard Mallender (National Chair) who chaired the meeting and Sian Berry (new Principle Speaker). You can check out their website here if you want. No pressure.

Leaving out the chair there were four speakers. Miriam Kennett of the Green Economics working group, Derek Wall, who's running for Male Principle Speaker and pops up everywhere, Penny Kemp, cough, and Peter Tatchell, who needs no introduction.

Penny Kemp began proceedings with possibly the least left wing speech of the entire conference, let alone the Green Left fringe. Telling us about low energy light bulbs, setting up a community shop, how big a vote she got and life styles. Um, this is Green Party conference - do you really think is moving the debate forwards at all? The one interesting thing she said was that mass movements were important because the elected representatives need them to get through legislation.

BUZZ - Wrong! Elected officials are there to support the movement not the other way round. Sigh.

Miriam Kennett was really interesting and she did make me think I should sign up for this Green Economics thing in order to bring myself up to speed. She talked about the difference between charity and doing nice things for people and bringing about change at a systematic level, but most importantly she started talking about the kinds of real contributions she felt the left could make to the green movement.

For her the left brings forward a high quality and coherent analysis - a class analysis, and that any study of neoliberalism had to start their, with an understanding of class. As the first green I've heard at conference talk about class struggle she gets the JimJay award for excellence. Congrats.

Derek Wall spoke very well I thought - despite his voice failing. I thought he was good on fundamentals like the fact that any attempt to save the planet from ecological disaster has to understand and take on capitalism itself. He also did some groovy name checking of Marx, William Morris and William Blake which was fleeting but pleasant.

Two things he said require further thought on my part.

Firstly he described the Green Left as a "comfort zone" which was the last thing I expected him to say. I suppose he was emphasising the fact that the project is genuinely not intended to be part of a factional struggle in the party, and I suppose somewhere where you can touch base with the ideas of class analysis and anti-capitalism. However, it does seem odd to me to describe something that hopes to promote class struggle as a comfort zone. Anyway.

Secondly, central to Derek's view of the economic problems we face today is about constant growth and accumulation - something central to most economists view of what a healthy economy looks like - but possibly moving towards the more hair shirted environmentalism that I feel less affinity to. I'm probably being unfair - as I say I'm keen to discuss economics a bit more just to help myself get my head around the issues.

Lastly Peter Tatchell spoke very well indeed and he was the first speaker, somewhat surprisingly for a left meeting, to place the emphasis on trade unionism and the workers movement itself. That was great and, I think, it helped raise the whole tone of the debate. He also laid out what he thought Green Left should be all about.

Firstly he said it was not there to "make trouble" (which may be a first for Tatchell, and obviously I mean that in a positive way) and that it was about strengthening the Green Party, something that has got to be the case, otherwise it's pointless. Certainly his views backed up what's I've been saying, that the Green Left has no real role in terms of ensuring policy moves left - it's already left, no question - although I'm sure GL can play a useful role in ongoing policy development.

For me I think it's about bring the Green Party into the trade unions, the anti-war movement, the climate change demo on the 4th Nov, et al as well as bringing those movements into the Greens. It's not that Green Party members aren't members of trade unions, or don't go on demos - but there does need to be a more coherent strategic approach, in my view, and it needs to go through the party from top to bottom rather than being left at the level of motions to conference or well intentioned initiatives of executive members. There's a gap between formal support and active involvement that really should be closed.

Tatchell talked about the cultural impact the green movement has had upon this country, to the extent that the mainstream parties are having to cope with and accommodate green ideas - but he also referred to the Green Party as the most successful left progressive party in the last fifty years - something that's pretty hard to argue with frankly, although historically those on the progressive left have not always seen the Greens as part of that movement.

That's why it's so important, according to Tatchell, that the Green Left help the Party as a whole appeal to trade unionists, to show the Green Party is the place for them and that those people from Labour or the hard left parties who are thinking of "making the jump" need that assurance. Perhaps that's what Derek meant by comfort zone.

Whether the left could cope with being in the Green Party I don't know. There would certainly be a culture shock - the tradition of centralisation goes deep, also the method of robust interventions and harsh political discourse certainly would leave any leftist unable to shake these habits pretty isolated in a party that has a decentralised, humanist ethic.

I was asked earlier whether Greens use the term 'comrade'. The obvious answer is no but there was a guy who used the word 'comrades' in a workshop and before I knew what I was doing I rolled my eyes and a load of people laughed. Oops - I hadn't actually meant to do that and the bloke who used the offending term is a good chap in my view - but image and how things come across is not really on his agenda. Thankfully I don't think he realised why people had laughed so his feelings were spared.

But this does beg the question what *do* the Greens refer to each other as? Colleague? Fellow party member? Elf master? I should really be told!

Taylor and Lucas key note speeches

The Green Party has no leader, but it does have two principle speakers - one male and one female.

Up until this conference they have been Keith Taylor and Caroline Lucas who both made keynote speeches on Friday and Saturday respectively. Where Caroline is universally regarded as some sort of perfect Earth Mother figure Keith is often regarded as a more conservative figure.

It's certainly true that Caroline is attractive and speaks very well (obviously I'm not saying is not attractive, despite his potato like appearance, cough, apologies) comparing the two speeches was quite instructive I thought.

Both speeches were very strong on the war, Caroline on specifics about the casualties in the middle east and the human cost of war - and Keith damning Bush and Blair and calling for Tony to be tried as a war criminal - and attacking nuclear weapons.

Keith used the C word of course - by which I mean capitalism (blushing, that was genuinely unintentional, but I'll leave it in none the less) - and attacked neoliberalism (naming it as such). He said it was a myth that "the market will deliver environmental and social solutions."

In terms of content in other words both of them were excellent, interesting and on the left of the left. It would be a nonsense to describe Keith as on the right I think, despite his respectable councilor's image. This is a man who gained 22% at the general election and may be the first Green MP ever in this country whose ideas revolve around social and environmental justice, neoliberalism, opposition to the market and imperialism. Not too shabby well all is said and done.

In terms of style Caroline is, I suppose rather more accomplished. Keith came across slightly breathlessly and perhaps a little bit self consciously - speaking like a man making a speech, if that makes sense. Adopting some of the politician's manner, without corrupting the radical message.

I don't know what I think about that. I do think image and style are important - but I also think it's worth having a clear separate identity. Blair's image is of a spinning, lying, corporate snake - that's not the road I'd like us (us!) to go down - not that Keith was anywhere near that.

As he said the main stream parties are hopelessly out of touch with the aspirations of this generation and have no sense of responsibility to the generations to come. It's worth avoiding stupid cosmetic mistakes but any carefully crafted image has to be one that looks and feels like participation and democracy. It should feel humane rather than slick and organic and sincere rather than manufactured.

At least that's my view on that. I'm not against the "power dressing" that one delegate complained of (by which I think she meant people wearing shirts and looking like they had jobs) but it's worth ensuring we don't go down the road of thinking that in order to beat New Labour we have to act and look like them. Thankfully we're a million miles from that right now.

After amber, before red

Slight break in blogging unfortunately, the facilities were a bit too inconvenient and other things were going on.

[Shrugs, yawns stylishly, stares into space with an air of bored disdain then begins to type again]

The crash accommodation became incredibly popular with lots of new women - they'd obviously heard. In fact it was so full that by morning you couldn't walk across the room without stepping on someone's carefully placed feet or arms. It was a bit strange around four in the morning to wake up and realise a mere three inches from my face was a less than well covered female thigh. Well, worse things happen at sea I suppose.

Oh, and a word on etiquette. Don't take your pants off in front of an entire room of strangers. I mean it - don't!

My first conference has been a steep learning curve and I really feel I'm starting to understand the Green Party, nationally, a bit better, and am feeling much less wary about the thing despite all the rows and lack of pant removal awareness. As a socialist in the Green Party although I joined in good faith and don't have any pseudo-entryist aims to turn it into a mass revolutionary party or whatever I had been unsure how far I'd be able to feel it was *my* party.

Well, i guess part of the function of conferences like this is to help integrate people into the organisation and it's worked. I've used the word "we" when talking about the Greens and I'm confident that the political ethos of the Party is one I'm at one with. I've also decided to stop calling people muppets as it's probably disrespectful.

True of course, but disrespectful.

Prostitution and other matters

There was such a great session on prostitution but I just don't have time to do it justice. I promise I will get back to this.

Other sessions today of great value was the stuff against the war and on the middle east specificly. There was a motion condemning Hezbollah equally with the US/UK/Israel which I thought a little simplistic but the discussion was pretty good.

There was a motion on the Turkish repression of the Kurds and to defend PKK leader Ocalan and a guest speaker from a Kurdish Party that received two million votes at the last election despite being illegal.

There was a really excellent motion on local shops (wooo!) which I took as an endorsement of the No Chains stuff we've been doing in Mill Road - it was so spot on.

There was also stuff on direct action against nukes plus discussion of Faslane (there will be direct action training on the beech tomorrow.... I'm so excited!)

A really good and level headed motion on Iran and a host of other down the line left wing stuff.

I'm consistently surprised at how left wing the party is - I'd have joined it even if it was far further to the right - but it certainly makes it more comfortable for a leftist to exist in - some of them just need to get a little more self aware though. Sometimes they do not come across as well as they could...

More on prostitution and Keith Taylor's big speech tomorrow - run out of time for now though - sorry.

Atunement

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

More flipping rows

Jeez. I was pretty disappointed yesterday with some of the name calling and bad behavior in the session on Keith Taylor, but today one session was just beserk!

The debate was on the topic that's on everyone's lips all round the country - membership ballots on constitutional changes. Gasp.

I'll be brief. In order to change the constitution, or "Philosophical Basis" you need a 2/3rds majority. The motion (D02) proposed that if something won a simple majority at conference (but not 2/3rds) then it could be put to the membership in a ballot (which would still require 2/3rd majority to pass).

It's partly tied in to the debate over having a leader which, apparently consistently gets a majority at conference (to have leader, boo) but never gets enough support for it to become policy. So although I'm not in favour of the leader thing I see no reason that a minority of conference should be able to block a wider debate on the subject with those who are not part of the self selected group of conference goers.

Darren Johnson put the motion and in the debate Matt Selwood made a very smooth tongued speech in favour. What surprised me was the downright vile behavior of those who opposed - including some who are supposedly left wing like Penny Kemp, who I've lost all respect for.

There were a number of wrecking amendments three to change the barrier to get the ballot approved by conference to 2/3rd (which begs the question if you can't get 2/3rds to agree in the constitutional change how are you going to get 2/3rd to agree to put that very question to the members?) And one to raise the quorum of the postal vote from 15% to 33% a barrier higher than any previous postal ballot ever taken by the Greens.

My point that if you oppose the motion you should vote against it not put in amendments to destroy the motion was well taken I thought.

Anyway we had allegations of corruption, people grabbing the mike and speaking without being called, pointless point of information / order after another - often not really points of order at all but yet another speech against. When the votes on amendments began the wreckers realised they were on the losing side. The first three amendments fell 46 to 188.

But instead of calmly battling on, accepting the will of conference they behaved... ah... it's too terrible to mention. Some delegates were utterly revolted by the sight of these (mainly gandalf types) cavorting and bullying and making allegations of dishonesty against anyone who disagreed with them. Others just laughed and I realised if you step back it's not nearly so painful.

Anyway, the chair was suffering terribly as these people just ignored him and they clearly think they own the party and they simply had no respect for democracy. The motion itself passed 115 to 50 (some people had walked out by this time) gaining the 2/3rds it required. a card vote was insisted upon by people who had just a few seconds before been insisting that card votes could not be trusted. The motion passed 150 to 54 this time (the extra are proxy votes on the whole) and justice was served.

It all just confirms to me that there are some very serious people in the Green Party that I dearly want to work with very much - and there is a minority of utter muppets.

NHS

The Greens have a small but committed trade union group and a good deal of the speakers identify themselves as trade unionists.

The also passed an emergency motion yesterday as follows;

"This conference supports the workers at NHS logistics in their strike action against being privatised and calls for an immediate halt to all privatisation of the NHS. Conference calls upon GPEx to publicise our support."

Which is great. It's interesting the level of openness to the trade unions that exists in the party. Today one of the main speakers was Brian Synott from the European Federation of Public Services Unions (which includes lots of the main unions in the UK) who spoke interestingly and well on what's happening at a European level.

With this level of support the Green trade union group really needs to raise their game to turn "support" into real active involvement. Although it's unfair, many people certainly would not associate the Greens with Trade Unions and the only way to turn that around is to get to the front of the movement. At least it's good to see here in the hall, I wondered if there would be any opposition to trade unionism and it appears there is consensus. Cool.

Another, more problematic motion was passed earlier today which, whilst having it's heart in the right places needs much more thought as to the implications.

"The Green Party believes it is wrong in principle that private health care companies and agencies should be able to employ or use staff who have been expensively trained by the NHS without contributing something to the cost of that training. Therefore companies, including pharmaceutical companies, employing or using NHS trained healthcare professionals outside the NHS will have to pay an additional training tax. This will take the form of a levy for each person hour during which they employ or use NHS trained staff outside the NHS. The proceeds from this levy will go directly into the NHS Tax which the Green Party is going to create."

Leaving aside the fact that this may make laid off NHS staff near unemployable by any employer with an eye to cost the whole emphasis is wrong. It's focus is on the individual health worker not the structures of the health system. A cleaner isn't expensively trained but they should be an NHS member of staff not in the hands of a private company.

We should abolish the agencies and privateers and take the whole of the health care system into public ownership not tinker about making NHS trained workers more expensive to employ than their private counterparts.

Crash land

Considering the crash accommodation was a floor in a church hall things weren't too bad.

Around twenty men and a couple of women packed into what became a rather cozy sleeping arrangement (steady... steady...) and good fortune smiles upon me - my sleeping bag turned up again. Whether I'll be able to withstand this until Sunday, who knows with my back... at my age... with my back. Anyway I feel pretty chipper on it.

Green Party conference, just like any other, has the debates and workshops, but a lot of the real action takes place over coffee, beer and hummus in the halls and dining areas around the venue. It's been a really useful experience on many levels talking to committed and experienced left wing activists from a very different tradition. Although parts of these conversations have been frightening to say the least.

Conference is either really difficult to understand or just chaos with a just thin veneer of structure, designed mainly to confuse. I'm still at a loss to work out the logic of their national election procedures which mean that male principle speaker will be elected by a members postal ballot and all the other posts (including female principle speaker) will be elected at conference. Anyway I had the fright of my life when someone asked me to go on the national executive.

I was like "We've just met, you barely know me! Are you just asking everyone you talk to?!?!?" Thankfully I'm not allowed as you have to be a member for two years but the principle just seems nuts.

Ed mentioned in an earlier comment that the beard factor was still far too high. It's been something I've been looking out for, and I think it's reasonably fair to say 10% of the delegates have just arrived from middle earth and any one of them could weave a long, strong rope with their fulsome beards. That's a far lower percentage than I was expecting.

During the local elections in Cambridge the CEN published pictures of all candidates for all wards and in almost every case you could tell who the Green Party candidate was without reading the caption. What came as something of a relief is that a full 90% of delegates *appear* not to be nutters at all and come within an acceptable spectrum of *normal looking*. God bless them.

The same cannot be said of the food which consists of unidentifiable heaps of something unspeakably vegan. My recommendation is to go to Planet Janet for breakfast who do a lovely poached egg on toast. I notice they also do massage and the dreaded Reiki - which is an odd combination but maybe useful after the more stressful sessions (not for me obviously)

Another thing I realised about delegates today was that more than half of them are women. Now *that* is unusual, although it is also predominantly white (not wholly you understand).

Much talk of Newsnight today - if people just learned to behave it would not have happened!

Politicians need time to develop, just like children

Excitement over and back to less fractious topics.

Much of the day's debating was on education. Numerous workshops, plenaries and the rest were devoted to new ways of doing education, the threats to schooling, the experiences of parents, teachers and kids of the school system.

It's certainly not my expert subject and my main theatre of political operations around schools have essentially been to encourage kids to riot - both when I was at school myself and later on when I should have known better. Still don't of course, still don't.

The debates that I attended on this (and I skipped class to talk to people about blogs and other new media stuff so I missed a fair bit) were really, really good. Not theoretically deep, but definitely challenging and "looking beyond capitalism into different economic systems" with all that might imply for education.

What was clear was this is a party with a vision (of God I sound like a paid up member or something, see my earlier negative remarks for some balance) that doesn't simply say privatisation bad (although there were people talking about this) and unions good (ditto) but also looking at other methods.

Now I'm not a great fan of Steiner schools and home schooling in particular - but the debates around these were fascinating because they pulled apart why you might want to take this route, what the advantages were, the disadvantages and the possibilities of mixing methods.

Whilst Blair and co focus on the end result (your A level in citizenship and other drivel) there was a determined effort to treat the subject as an opportunity to see where and how things arise. There was a reassertion that the subject of education is a human being not a just valuable addition to someone's workforce.

There was some talk of "planetary literacy" which threw me a bit but what I think they were saying, when I cut through the slightly horrid jargon, was that there is a space where science and society meet and this should be at the center of a decent education system.

Children as the victims of our current education system can be oppressed, have the fun of learned knocked out of them and have instilled in them a respect for authority (which is a bad thing).

Let's turn away from the sausage factory schools and look towards more child friendly methods that are as diverse as the children that are taught.

That crucial vote

To that crucial vote I mentioned.

It looks like Newsnight may be running with this tonight as it shows the Green Party in a bad light (and the day could only go up from here). In fact they are running a poll What's the point of the Green Party charming boys, charming.

It's a strange story. The Green Party has no leader - but it does have two principle speakers, one male and one female. Up until now the female principle speaker has been Caroline Lucas (more on that soon) and her male counter part is Keith Taylor - Brighton councilor and potentially the first Green MP - if they can break the glass ceiling.

Anyway, to stand for (re)election you have to fill in some forms get members to sign it and give it in on time. Naughty Keith pushed the deadline and one of his ten nominees turned out not to be a registered member despite giving large sums of cash to the party regularly. As you might expect non-party members can't nominate in these elections and although it came as a shock to all that this person was not officially a member some party members decided that Keith's forms were not filled in correctly and so he was not nominated and so the election would be between the two 'minor' candidates.

Now whilst I believe there was some incompetence here on the part of Keith (who may well have more important things to think about than filling in forms absolutely 100% correctly) it was simple idiocy for people to argue that he could not stand.

I shalln't go into the logistics of why there was a debate on this - but there was - and those who felt Keith should not be on the ballot paper did not start off on the right foot with me. "Rules are rules" were their very first words to conference, I kid you not. Rules are bloody rules. Another delegate said that "If we don't have rules... there would be chaos."

In these people's minds democracy exists through its adherence to procedure. Well, I totally disagree. Democracy is defined by the level of participation of the ordinary members. These people were seeking to deny the members the chance to vote for someone they clearly wanted to elected last time round, and whatever I may think of Keith (and I have no major grievances) any male principle speaker elected without Keith on the ballot paper would have no legitimacy and a decision of that nature could spark a civil war in the party.

In my view better a centre left progressive who can fulfill the functions of principle speaker than someone to his left who is viewed with disgruntlement or even hostility by the members. In whose interests would that be? If Keith was to stop being principle speaker in my view he should be beaten in a fair fight, not ruled out of order because of one incorrect nomination that he was given no chance to correct.

Leo Lipman said "Why do we have rules?" which I thought was *the* question in this context. And he ended his speech by saying "The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of law." Absolutely.

The debate was marred with tetchiness, mainly from the anti-Keith people. One person said he didn't want to be "railroaded... this isn't the SWP" and there were a number of references to the Hove caucus - as if the only people who opposed the move to bar Keith from the election were his mates. I don't appreciated being labeled anything whether it be that I'm "like" the SWP or I'm from Hove.

Hove! With it's woeful lack of internet cafes! Pah.

One amusing moment was when one delegate accidentally referred to the debate as being around the election of a leader. Shrieks of comical squeaking went up "Leader!?! Leader?!?" Man, I almost fell off my chair and for all my irritation that moment confirmed for me I was in the right room.

Anyway, the hands went up, it was close - but it looked to me like Keith was to be barred from standing. A card vote was called, points of order raised, proxy votes questioned... and in the end the proposal fell by 84 to 67. Keith can stand and newsnight now have their footage of Green Party members behaving like idiots... I wont get a chance to see it so please let me know how it goes. Sigh.

Muppet count was pretty high this morning.

There was then a second motion attempting to do something similar but via a different route. Matt Wooten, someone I've been smiling at from afar ever since he dissed the disgraced ex-party leader to his face, said "let the members decide" which seems so obvious, but so badly needed saying.

Another vote (no cards this time) 46 for barring Keith, 48 against. Recount. 50 for barring Keith, 55 against. Hurrah! Disaster averted - what are some people thinking?

Member 96331 signing in

Okay, it's just taken me two hours to find internet access. Probably not the best use of my time - but I did get to see the sea.

Man, it must be something to do with political conferences - disorganised, fractious, chummy and very, very useful all at the same time. Green Party hacks may look slightly more organic than their union or left wing counterparts but they have the same steel like determination to get amendment two part b through that I would recognise anywhere. I also think there may be a 'hack walk' - I think this deserves more study. I digress.

The day did not start well, standing in an almost motionless queue as a disoriented volunteer with "rabbit caught in the headlights" eyes tried to register the ever increasing line. I swear he sat shaking with money in one hand, filled in form in the other and asked a woman three times (!) what her name was again. She took it like a saint as I dreamed up new ways I could reek my revenge on him.

This is absolutely unfair of course because it was actually the TEAM of hacks who sat round watching him for a quarter of an hour before volunteering to give him a hand that were the real villains of the piece - but I was in a sweat. I'd made the special effort to get to Brighton for the start of conference for the day's only crucial vote and it looked set for me to miss it by a whisker standing in some kind of Bretchian interpretation of a queue.

Don't get me wrong most conferences of this kind have an air of incompetence about them - possibly due to being staffed by volunteers for the day, always new to the job, but it does grate don't you know.

Will Brighton Rock?

Well, tomorrow I'll be off to my very first Green Party conference, spending Thursday to Sunday in sunny Brighton.

I have absolutely no idea what to expect, but it will be interesting to see how it compares to other conferences I've attended. For instance, how many references to the Arctic Monkeys will there be? Of course that would be the very opposite of cool, i.e. a middle aged man's idea of what passes for 'trendy'. No offense meant boys.

I'm staying in the rather frighteningly named "crash accommodation" and I have been advised that conference embodies both the very worst and the very best of the Green Party membership, gulp. Double gulp.

I'm going to try to blog conference day by day - but we'll have to see what the facilities are like, you may have to wait until I get back, keep your fingers crossed. There will be at least one other blogger at conference Sian Berry, a very charming young woman, who can be found here during conference - maybe she'll have a laptop I can borrow...

So if there's anything you'd like me to look out for, Caroline Lucas turning up in a 4x4, ritual chanting and the burning of enormous wicker structures just let me know and I'll keep 'em peeled.