Well, all I was saying that public ownership of the utlities was Lib Dem (and before that Alliance) policy right as far as 1992 - and as late as 1997 Paddy Ashdown was calling for the renationalisation of the rail network. I don’t see how these things are “hard left” (as opposed to, say, nationalisation of the IT industry or the retail trade, which would be) as they only stopped being in public hands as a result of the policies of the “hard right” under Thatcher and Major. Some things cannot effectively operate on a profit-maximising basis (as opposed to surplus-making) and basic utilities, among which I would put transport as well as health, education and energy, would be such an example.

Citizens’ Income was Liberal policy for over 30 years up to its apparent vanishing in the mid-90s - so again, you may disagree with it, but to characterise it as hard left seems somewhat over-the-top; it is about rationalising benefits, eliminating the poverty trap and recognising the need for independence at 18, something your leaders still talk about but with no clear polciy how to achieve it. Greens would pay for it through higher taxes on the rich - not hard left at all when you consider the extreme inequality which now exists (take the CEOs of the top FTSE 100 companies - in 1988 the ration of their income to their average employee was 17:1; now it is 75:1). Our conference last weekend voted for an additional high rate of tax (not, as I and others had proposed, an absolute limit) on incomes over 10 times the minimum wage - the capitalist thinker David Ricardo advocated a rate of 10:1 as a voluntary maximum and most industries followed this, broadly, until the rise of Thatcher and Reagan.

So what we are about is not so extreme and is certainly not based on class envy but simply on what makes fair, sensible and sustainable use of our resources. We do not advocate autarky, but we do support greater self-sufficiency (which again I always thought LD support for the EU was all about that: it is in fact the founding principle of the EU!). It makes little sense in a polluted world to have lost most of our native apple stocks and instead be flying apples from New Zealand. So, yes, we would encourage UK farmers to grow their own apples again and put tariffs on NZ apples; we would seek to re-industrialise the UK (sustainably) rather than import goods from China - things which we will have to do any way as fuel and transport costs are set to rocket in the coming decades. Our choice is whether we struggle to adapt through economic chaos or opt to begin a planned transition to a more local, but not closed economy with a focus on encouraging small business and co-operatives (again something traditionally Liberal).

The choice is yours - I do not think the Greens claim to have unique concerns, but we do have increasingly unique responses, including now, policies which used to be shared at least in part with your party but clearly are now beyond the pale of Lib Dem thinking.

Thanks for what has been an intelligent exchange and I hope you know I do respect yout views and retain some affection for the Lib Dems (nice to hear from you, Tim). However, your clear and articulate denunciation of the policies I listed and the themes I see as being vital to solving the planet’s problems, and protecting our species’ suvival, has made clearer than ever to me that I was right to leave the Liberal Democrats and seek to advance the cause of real change through the Green Party.

I wasn’t referring specifically to your post as hard-left, but to the Green Party’s position in general. However, since you mention it, surely it is fair to describe support for the nationalisation of utilities as hard left. Also, probably the minimum living wage and higher progressive taxation, but that would depend on the actual numbers. A citizen’s income would be a great idea if it weren’t phenomenally expensive, and indifference to phenomenal expense also seems - except in cases of war - to be a hard left trait.

You will see on my blog a detailed analysis of the Orange Book, so if you want to pinpoint the call to abandon our social conscience, perhaps you could look there.

Frankly, I don’t agree with the line that principles are all very well, but you have to compromise. My disagreement with the Green Party is not that it fails to compromise, but that its values of care for the environment, and (for most) for human well-being, have been put second to the mistaken values of socialism, irrationalism and autarky.

It is supreme arrogance - albeit probably of the kind that every party is guilty of - to claim that you uniquely care about social justice and the environment. Caring is not enough if you stifle innovation with socialism and autarky, and ignore the evidence of what is actually happening, and obstruct science with irrationalism. Those would be more fitting actions for a hater than a carer.

I’m sure we’ll continue to see more Green councillors in years to come, but they’re going to be struggling every step of the way. There won’t be a sudden breakthrough which suddenly sees greens being swept into town halls across the country.

The Lib Dems succeed as the third party because they’re vague enough to be a repository for protest votes from across the political spectrum. When the tories are unpopular, they pick up tories - when labour is unpopular, they pick up labourites. The Greens are too ideological to appeal to any old protest voter.

Anyway, the big test will be the 2009 European elections.

My overview is:

1) If the Greens are wiped out, it is a disaster for them. Activists will be jumping overboard literally left right and centre.

2) It is to be expected that they lose their London seat. If they retain it, they are doing well and making slow but steady progress in terms of support levels. If they lose it, the new leadership structure is making little difference to their fortunes.

3) If they make 1-2 gains, they are doing brilliantly and making real inroads

4) If they make more than 2 gains, something odd has happened, and they’ve captured the public mood.

Like the Liberals and the Tories, we Greens have one MSP. Labour are the largest party on the Council, then the SNP, and both the Greens and the Liberals have five seats to the Tories’ one.

So, third equal, even in Glasgow. We’re coming.

I’d just note that in response to your statement that I call the list of policies I mention you refer to them as being “hard left”. Nearly all of them were Lib Dem policies into the 1990’s, with the exception of LD support for the maximum working week opt-out, as that EU Directive did not exist at that time (- we did though support signing up to the Social Chapter, which would have enacted it.). Yet now I feel you bracket me with the Derek Hattons of the world.

On all these issues, LD policy has swung sharply rightward or, in some cases, apears to have lapsed into unnoticed silence. It is a shame - people are crying out for something different, but at the Lib Dems advanced on a platform of change, they have shed difference for a caution which doubtless you will argue is about realpolitik and I am just a dreamy idealist.

However, a Scottish LD councillor depressed me greatly when she told me after hearing I had joined the Greens that “Principles are all very well, but if you ever get the chance to take a real decision, you will learn you have to compromise -before breakfast, lunch and dinner.” Fine, from my political, personal and professional lives I know this is of course the case, but it is good to start out with some values to compromise on: are you any longer certain what Liberal Democrast core values actually are?

The Green Party is passionately concerned about humanity and that is why social justice is so important to us. There are limited resources and so it is logical that we have a more equal society if they are to be used sustainably and for life to be happier for everyone (not hairshirted at all, I can assure you but maybe more fulfileld than our go-getting, ultra-competitive all-out capitalist society). I am absolutely no misanthrope and to put into context, my own mantra is not “Save the planet” but rather “Save the human”, becuase th planet will survive and go on, as will life of some sort. Greens’ intense, motivaing desire is for humanity to continue to exist as part of that future.

Thanks for missing me, but I can assure you that it was for purely ideological purposes - in spite of my unbounded optimism for the Green Party’s prospects, there are few tactical reasons for leaving the Lib Dems and joing the Greens!

Best wishes to you.
Adrian

And as Derek Wall fades and Caroline Lucas leads the English party, that’s only going to accelerate.