The Green Party clearly assume they have an image problem. “Think you know us? Think again” is the slogan with which they are campaigning for the European parliamentary elections on June 4th. Can the Green Party mould their single issue voice into a broad-based political platform that appeals to mainstream voters? Their leader, Dr Caroline Lucas, thinks they can, and no one is better placed than her to make it happen.

I met Dr Lucas after the launch of their South-East campaign for the upcoming poll. The event had all the ceremony and media coverage one would expect, but was attended by barely a dozen people who weren’t press or party officials. She seemed undaunted; perhaps because she recognised that for many there in person her speech would be like a sermon to the converted, Dr Lucas spoke straight at the television camera. She has an easy confidence and a clear grasp of what she is trying to convey. It is this clarity of vision that she thinks is essential to the prospects of the Green Party: it was the “urgency of getting our message across as effectively as possible” that motivated the party’s constitutional shift to a leadership system in 2008.

The position of Principal Speaker that the Greens used until last year was meant to be a symbolic rejection of the top-down models that the major parties in Parliament used, but the move away from it, says Dr Lucas, was “a very pragmatic decision”. When I ask her whether this pragmatism was in fact a capitulation to the media agenda that shapes the political culture she evades the implicit criticism, insisting that the public like to have “a person they can recognise and associate with those ideas” – I take that as a politician’s ‘yes’. They have clearly embraced that personality culture judging by the prominence of Dr Lucas’ friendly visage on the campaign leaflets that have poured through my letter box in the last week. She is as fresh-faced as David Cameron, her short-cropped hair strikes an effortlessly modern look, and, uniquely amongst current party leaders, she’s a woman.

 I am interested in whether Dr Lucas sees gender as an important dimension of politics, in particular regarding the under-representation of women in the House of Commons. She immediately fleshes out the context of the problem: the image of “grey-suited men in Westminster” and the “Punch-and-Judy politics” of their parliamentary exchanges just “isn’t very attractive to women”. She is insistent that the Greens “try to do politics differently”, but this brings us back to the tension between principle and pragmatism that surrounded the leadership issue. I press Dr Lucas on how her party is “more women-friendly” as she claims it is and she outlines on the one hand the support that they offer their female candidates in balancing the demands of a family and a political career, but she also makes reference to the “culture” within the party that, in contrast to the Lib-Lab-Con model, is about accountability and accessibility.

As a woman, she aims to offer “an inspirational type of leadership” in contrast to the “clunking fist of Gordon Brown or the spin of David Cameron”, rejecting an “authoritarian” style of managing her party. I wonder whether this noble approach (including the mandatory re-election of the leader every two years) is only possible because the party has no seats in the Commons, no need for whips, no backbenchers to cajole – in fact, little hope of getting these things either.

  Unsurprisingly, Dr Lucas resists the conclusion that the Greens are bereft of prospects in the British Parliament; although she is herself an MEP, a position elected by a system of proportional representation in stark contrast to first-past-the-post. Even within the Westminster system, she passionately believes, there are a “handful” of seats that are within reach of electing a Green MP, listing constituencies to substantiate her claim. So, what are the Green Party’s ambitions for the next general election, which may only be months away? One million votes.

She is clearly in favour of state-sponsorship for all parties to level the playing field of funding campaigns, but beyond that she insists that we must “massively rejuvenate our entire parliamentary system”. In her eyes the recent scandal of MPs expenses only adds to the chronic failings of the culture and institutions of British politics, which – when it is not riling them up – switches ordinary people off. She is animated when she insists that “politics has to be something much broader, much more vibrant, much more alive”.

Surely the European Union invokes at least as much anger and apathy though, I suggest. She doesn’t disagree, but insists that this is a product of a “eurosceptic” media and a political elite who refuse to acknowledge that, for instance, on the environment 80 per cent of our legislation originates in Brussels.

As a campaigner on environmental issues she believes it is often possible to have “more influence in Europe” than if she were a backbencher in London, an admission that will not prevent her seeking her own seat in the Commons as Green Party candidate for Brighton Pavilion at the next election. It is with this in mind that I interpret her central European Parliament campaign policy of 1 million ‘green-collar’ jobs in Britain as part of a Green New Deal, reconstituting Roosevelt’s Keynesian revolution for today’s economic as well as environmental crisis.

Dr Lucas may be a great champion of Europe and a dedicated MEP, but she recognises that the Greens will need to offer the voting public bread-and-butter issues with a tangible impact if they are going to make headway in domestic politics. What will prove fascinating to observe over coming years is whether the pragmatic desire for political influence that has recently fired the Green Party under Dr Lucas will inevitably compromise the values and integrity which give them a small but respected niche in our polarized political landscape. If it does not, maybe Caroline will have succeeded in her quest to “redefine what politics is”.

What is the European Parliament?

The European Parliament (EP) is the only directly elected institution in the European Union. The first direct elections were held in 1979, and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are elected at five-year intervals. Together with the Council, the EP forms part of the legislative branch of the EU. Whereas the Council represents the interests of national governments, the Parliament is meant to represent European citizens.
The EP is organized similarly to a national parliament  with 7 Euro parties with distinct policy platforms. The 785 MEPs  sit together with their party group, rather than with their national delegation. The largest group in the EP is currently the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), which includes the British Conservatives. The second largest group is the Party of European Socialists (PES), where the British Labour Party belongs.

What does it do?

The main task of the EP, like a national parliament,is to pass legislation and to exercise democratic control over the other EU institutions. With each revision of the EU Treaties, the European Parliament has been granted additional powers. Today it is a genuine co-legislator in the European Union. That is, it is responsible for legislation, together with the Council, in most policy areas.Around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact has its origins in EU legislation, and the EP thus has considerable influence on politics and economics in this country. One example of recent EP activities is legislation forcing mobile phone operators to lower their prices. It has also passed rules aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% within a decade. Unlike national parliaments, the EP does not directly decide the composition of the EU executive, although it has veto over the appointment of the European Commission. It also does not have legislative initiative, as most national EU parliaments do.

What could these elections change?

The Euro elections will decide the composition of the European Parliament, thus the policy direction. Some of the key policy issues that the next Parliament will deal with include designing a framework of financial regulation, deciding on regulation to combat climate change, and coordinating common management of immigration flows to/within the EU.
The European Parliament also plays an important role in deciding the future of European integration, including future enlargement of the Union to include Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey.
If the centre-right European People’s Party remains in power, then the current Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, is also likely to be reappointed for a second term. If, however, the Socialist group wins a larger share of the seats, they may force the Council to appoint another candidate with a more leftist policy agendasuch as fingerprints and face recognition data or an iris pattern scan.

How will they affect British politics?

The Labour Party looks set to do badly in the Euro elections. This may trigger renewed calls for Brown’s resignation within the Labour Party. The Conservatives will use this as another opportunity to call for an immediate general election, which they are likely to win, maybe even by a landslide.
In general, it will be parties on the fringes of British politics that reap the benefits from the recent furor over MP expenses. In particular, the UK Independence Party will do well. The British National Party is likely to win its first European seat. If the Conservative Party loses seats to UKIP and BNP, the party leadership may be tempted to adopt a more hard-line position on issues concerning the EU, immigration and law and order. David Cameron has already pledged that his party will leave the centrist EPP after the election and establish a new party group of Eurosceptic European Conservatives in the EP.

Do people vote for their European candidate, or is it really a reaction to their national government?

Elections to the European Parliament are generally described as ‘second-order’ elections. That is, they are elections of less importance than general elections, and thus characterized by low turnout and lacklustre campaign. They often constitute a plebiscite on the national government’s performance, where vote choice is primarily decided by domestic political concerns rather than European politics.
This is particularly the case in Britain, where the political parties make few attempts to campaign on European issues and voters are uninformed about the European politics.  In other European countries, there is a more rigorous debate on European issues, and voters are more likely to vote on the basis of concerns relevant to the European Union.
Turnout levels also vary considerably between member states. In the 2004 Euro elections, less than 20% of the electorate voted in Slovakia and Slovenia,whereas 82% voted in Malta and 73% in Italy. The participation rate in Britain at 38% was below the EU average of 46%.

The shooting of two armed guards at Atrium army base by Republican extremists in February had some of the hallmarks of the old days. For many in Northern Ireland it has raised fears of a return to a troubled past. The history of Northern Ireland is one of seemingly intractable conflict between Republicans and Loyalists that has lasted for over 100 years, claimed thousands of lives and culminated in the destructive of central Manchester by an IRA blast. But then on a remarkable day in April 1997, the Good Friday Agreement was signed, weapons were put down, the Northern Ireland Assembly instigated and David Trimble, now Lord Trimble, was elected the first First Minister of Northern Ireland.

On meeting Trimble you get the overarching impression of a man for whom forceful yet methodical argument has been his trademark. A Nobel Prize winner and an instrumental figure in the Northern Ireland Peace process, Trimble has spent much of his working life talking – painstaking negotiation, back and forth, wearing down opposition until all alternatives have been exhausted, ‘it’s simple unglamorous persistence that wins out.’
So I ask him whether talking is the solution to the world’s most intractable and to the recent shootings by extremists. ‘Yes,’ he answers, ‘but talking to the right people – not to the extremists.’ Given the prominent role of negotiations with the IRA and the Real IRA in the Northern Ireland peace talks, this would seem a rather odd response from such a serial negotiator. But, pleads Trimble, the truth of the peace process is rather different to what we think we know. ‘Negotiations with extremists, the Hain-Powell consensus’ as he calls it, after Blair’s chief of staff, ‘did not bring an end to the Northern Ireland conflict, but rather the work, for many years beforehand was responsible’

Trimble is being nothing short of irreligious. If we thought we’d learnt anything from the nineties in Northern Ireland, it was that getting long lasting peace involved persuading, even charming all types to compromise, extremists included. So we should reject this consensus for dealing with extremists. And yet it’s difficult to imagine a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that didn’t include a role for the more extreme factions within Hamas. But Trimble’s no ideologue and accepts that the Good Friday agreement could never have been reached without the RIRA at the negotiating table. What he begs to differ on is how you go about getting to the table in the first place:
‘I’m not saying never communicate with those involved in violence but your very much more likely to succeed if you come with clear conditions for negotiations.’ This seems an old fashioned view, somewhat a reversal of the now conventional wisdom that negotiations must go on even as factions continue to extol violence.

But Trimble, as one would expect from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is unfazed by conventional wisdom and returns to his experience in Northern Ireland. Conditions worked there he argues. ‘Look at what happened when negotiations were unconditional. We had the situation in 1972 when unconditional negotiations with the extremists, if anything, exacerbated the problem’ although he concedes that probably no talks could have been successful then.

What brought an end to the Northern Ireland troubles was as much the conditions on the ticket to the negotiating table, as the negotiations that went on there. ‘The extremists knew from the start that if there was ‘sufficient’ support for the proposals made at any peace talks, they could remain totally opposed, but it wouldn’t matter, they would be left out of any agreement.’

In criticising the likes of Powell and Blair, Trimble’s doing more than just cautioning against negotiating unconditionally with extremists, he’s rejecting the notion of parachuting personalities into conflict zones at the cost of forgetting that it is dogged determination by the people that matter that’s at the heart of peace-making. Referring to a copy of Jonathon Powell’s diaries describing Clinton’s role in leading the peace talks, Trimble nods and smiles ‘Clinton had no idea how to get the result he wanted – same as Blair – thought he could get what he wanted by charm.’
‘Those outside can encourage and assist but it is the people who are there that must do the deal.’

Trimble comes on to his most recent experience, advising Israelis and Palestinians on solutions to their seemingly intractable conflict – a role that he has taken to much acclaim. Yet he is keen to reiterate, ‘I certainly didn’t do anything that might have been telling other people what to do.’ This, I think, is the lesson Trimble wants observers of the Northern Irish peace process to take away; that there are no lessons, there is no one-size-fits-all model.

‘The experience in Northern Ireland has led to £90 million worth of programmes for working with extremists in Britain. This is based on the premise that non-violent extremists will act as a bulwark against violent extremists, supposed lessons from the Peace Process. But we must totally oppose the ideologies that promote violence.’
So I return to my original question and ask Trimble from his experience what we should think about the recent spate of shootings and apparent upsurge of support for extremism among a new generation of young people, some as young as twelve, in Northern Ireland. Perhaps here the lessons of the peace process have some resonance. He replies that young men are always going to be susceptible to recruitment by extremists; no peace settlement will change that.

Does this mean that even the peacemaker does not believe in a lasting peace in Northern Ireland? He is reminded of the lecture he gave on receiving his Nobel Prize for Peace. ‘I said there that winning was like receiving the reward for a race run while the race is still not quite finished.’ ‘This race, at least, is now won.’

The way in which we select people is a complicated affair, and one which seemingly divides Oxford. Not only do we find colleges split over their approach to the personal statement, but also to their interpretation of hustings procedures, both of which have drawn criticism this week. Cherwell would suggest we should respect the autonomy of SCRs, and by and large, JCRs, to make their own decisions about these matters.

The UCAS form: hours of deliberation, focus-grouping, re-writes and deep analytical consideration of the issues being addressed. It all seemed to suggest we were writing the next Labour manifesto and not, in fact, 47 lines of personal statement. Cherwell remembers well the emphasis and priority that teachers and heads of departments applied to what essentially boiled down to ‘my hobbies and interests.’ Now we hear that several Oxford colleges are in agreement with their Cambridge counterparts: our personal statements weren’t worth the paper they didn’t bother to print them on. The discovery that personal statements do little but ‘muddy the waters’ of the application process has understandably irritated students who feel they were grossly misinformed when filling out their UCAS forms. However, we shouldn’t be too quick to anger. Much as the haze of a couple of years might lead us to believe our acceptance to Oxford was little but a foregone conclusion, we did in fact all apply to other universities. As is well known, Oxford isn’t like other universities. The fact that some colleges now ignore personal statements does not necessarily discredit them in general. The UCAS website itself admits a likely disparity in opinion, stating that ‘some course tutors find personal statements crucial when making decisions’ whereas ‘others might not put as much emphasis on them.’ The Oxbridge application process varies significantly from the majority of higher education institutions, many of which do not ask students to attend interviews, and therefore only have the UCAS form to make their decisions. Difference between Universities, and indeed between Colleges, is something to be expected, not derided.

The same sort of inter-college disparity is present in JCR hustings. Some are dry as dust and poorly attended whilst others are raucous affairs of debauched tomfoolery, with a minority of colleges striking an effective balance. Cherwell would argue that there is room for both. There are clearly some lines to be drawn: Asking St Peter’s JCR presidential candidates to illustrate a preference between various paternal/canine intercourse scenarios, for example, is surely completely inappropriate when involved in the appointment of the most senior student position in college. Admittedly, when looking at student politics from an objective viewpoint the righteous gravity with which many apply themselves to their roles can seem a touch ridiculous. But these roles are nonetheless important parts of a successful college community, and choosing a JCR President on basis their ability to borrow a ladder seems strangely at odds with the significance most colleges give the position. So as ‘profoundly patronised’ as many Worcester students currently feel about the college’s SCR forcing an overhaul of how the JCR goes about its husting process, it isn’t impossible to understand their viewpoint. That being stated, Cherwell doesn’t suggest that the student bodies which currently require their candidates to engage in shoe wrestling, sexual hypothetics and inordinate alcohol consumption don’t care who represent them. That fact that they have chosen requirements which to some seem irrelevant to an important decision making process doesn’t necessarily undermine the elected after the fact—after all, the majority of the electorate will already be aware of the character of their candidates to some extent. We should consider all selection procedures with respect to the needs and culture of the college in question. What has been lacking from the furore over both stories this week is an appreciation for context.

The same applies to personal statements. Perhaps it was pointless for many of us to fill up those 47 lines, but for equally as many others it might not have been. Institutions make decisions in myriad different ways: One party will consider one side of the coin, the other party the reverse, the important thing is which way up it lands.