Just for accuracy in Worcestershire the Greens excluded Labour from their anti reform alliance preferring to work with the Tories and Libdems. So if you are trying to build an anti Tory/reform political alliance the greens might not be your best allies
In Southwark the Greens have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems against Labour. Of course they are a bourgeois party, unless the designation is to become entirely meaningless
Indeed, Labour and the Greens are both politically bourgeois parties. The test of being a bourgeois party is not whether it forms a coalition with the LIberal Democrats. My understanding of Southwark (Richard is there, I am not) is that the Greens put forward a housing and climate platform that was to the left of Labour’s – centred on a much larger council-house-building programme, stronger tenant protections and rent controls, and a more critical stance on estate regeneration and private landlordism. The Lib Dems, while not as radical as the Greens nationally, signed up to that local agenda in Southwark and used their combined seats to elect a Green leader and form a joint executive. Labour, by contrast, did not adopt that platform and did not secure a coalition with either party, so it moved into opposition despite having the most seats. Labour would have been more likely to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats than with the Greens.
You make two points in one paragraph: the Greens have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems against Labour. Of course, they are a bourgeois party. My point is: these are all politically bourgeois parties, but which of them forms a coalition is immaterial to that. The framing that "the Greens have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems against Labour" might make some readers think that this positions the Greens to the right of Labour. The Greens would argue that they are to the left of the Liberals, and Labour is to the right of the Liberals, on the specific issues in their platform for administration. And it's the popularity of those more left policies which contributed towards voters switching from Labour to Green.
I think it is possible to characterise some green parties as something ciao democrats but I find the Worcestershire Green Party to be a strange mix of Disgruntled thatcherites, nimbys, ecologists and some good people. It is definitely to the right of Labour.
The young activists of what you'd call the "centre-Right" of the Democratic Socialists of America (the forces who elected Mamdani) increasingly argue that the proletarianized intelligensia are the vanguard now
The proletarianised intelligentsia is certainly a part of the vanguard, but it's deeply mistaken to exclude activists in trade unions, social movements and community organisations.
Jim I am from Worcestershire. Richard said Labour would not be joining, it was not a hard decision for him to make as he wasn't invited. As I understand it the Tories would not join if Labour was in the alliance so the Greens excluded them in favour of the Tories.
It's not clear to me that the Greens are responsible for Labour being outside the administration. It seems more like the Conservatives and Labour can't work together. However, unless Worcestershire is some paradise land of milk and honey, it's almost certainly correct for Labour to refuse to participate in such a lash-up
Just for accuracy in Worcestershire the Greens excluded Labour from their anti reform alliance preferring to work with the Tories and Libdems. So if you are trying to build an anti Tory/reform political alliance the greens might not be your best allies
Thanks for the correction Carl!
Labour's two councillors were not excluded, they chose not to be part of the ruling group.
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/labour-will-not-join-coalition-in-worcestershire-21-05-2026/
In Southwark the Greens have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems against Labour. Of course they are a bourgeois party, unless the designation is to become entirely meaningless
Indeed, Labour and the Greens are both politically bourgeois parties. The test of being a bourgeois party is not whether it forms a coalition with the LIberal Democrats. My understanding of Southwark (Richard is there, I am not) is that the Greens put forward a housing and climate platform that was to the left of Labour’s – centred on a much larger council-house-building programme, stronger tenant protections and rent controls, and a more critical stance on estate regeneration and private landlordism. The Lib Dems, while not as radical as the Greens nationally, signed up to that local agenda in Southwark and used their combined seats to elect a Green leader and form a joint executive. Labour, by contrast, did not adopt that platform and did not secure a coalition with either party, so it moved into opposition despite having the most seats. Labour would have been more likely to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats than with the Greens.
So what
You make two points in one paragraph: the Greens have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems against Labour. Of course, they are a bourgeois party. My point is: these are all politically bourgeois parties, but which of them forms a coalition is immaterial to that. The framing that "the Greens have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems against Labour" might make some readers think that this positions the Greens to the right of Labour. The Greens would argue that they are to the left of the Liberals, and Labour is to the right of the Liberals, on the specific issues in their platform for administration. And it's the popularity of those more left policies which contributed towards voters switching from Labour to Green.
I think it is possible to characterise some green parties as something ciao democrats but I find the Worcestershire Green Party to be a strange mix of Disgruntled thatcherites, nimbys, ecologists and some good people. It is definitely to the right of Labour.
The young activists of what you'd call the "centre-Right" of the Democratic Socialists of America (the forces who elected Mamdani) increasingly argue that the proletarianized intelligensia are the vanguard now
The proletarianised intelligentsia is certainly a part of the vanguard, but it's deeply mistaken to exclude activists in trade unions, social movements and community organisations.
Jim I am from Worcestershire. Richard said Labour would not be joining, it was not a hard decision for him to make as he wasn't invited. As I understand it the Tories would not join if Labour was in the alliance so the Greens excluded them in favour of the Tories.
The Conservatives had 12 councillors and Labour had 2. It might not have been possible to outvote Reform UK without the Conservatives.
That is also true. But the administration the greens have formed included the Tories and excluded Labour.
It's not clear to me that the Greens are responsible for Labour being outside the administration. It seems more like the Conservatives and Labour can't work together. However, unless Worcestershire is some paradise land of milk and honey, it's almost certainly correct for Labour to refuse to participate in such a lash-up