Ökopopulismus: Wie grüne Parteien wieder gewinnen - WAS TUN?

So if people from sort of generation X and particularly those gamers, but there's a cult, there's this kind of feeling of all this disruption is abnormal and we just need to go back to partings with us all. And if people younger than that, there's much more often a sense that the whole system that the world is based on, the political system, whether you call that capitalism or the kind of political systems that we have are broken and that we need much more radical change to fix them. And in the green party, that plays out an interesting way because most people who join the green party are quite radical, right? They're not, you know, these aren't centrist particularly. But there's often a kind of parallel sense that you can't say the radical things, because there's not really popular or that it used to be what you believe. The political common sense in the 90s was, you know, certainly in Britain and America, it was about triangulation, it's the only way the left can win is by pretending not to be f-wing. So you might believe yourself in nationalization and we're talking to all the green party members. So, well, obviously I believe in all these radical changes, but in all the two in elections, we have to pretend to be much more centrist than theirs. Whereas the kind of common sense for the generation younger than that, it's often, no, no, those are the popular bits. You know, support for nationalization of most things is about 70%. That's the stuff we should be talking about. And actually all the sorts of, and what you might call it, you could liberalism, that the old generation wants to talk about is often a lot less popular in a way than more radically economic demand is that often the party, often common, but perhaps was a bit embarrassed to talk about it in the past. Greens have often been afraid of being taught about because they don't like being criticized. Well, in fact, having the right-wing papers attack you and talk about how they hate you is a very good way to get people on the left to like and to see, you know, these, you know, if people don't trust Greens, because these might just be sort of middle class stories on bikes as the stereotype used to run, then being in the trenches with people, being attacked by the right-wing press and continuing to speak up to them anyway is a very good way for them to see that, no, you are on their side, and you're, you know, waiting to take it. (upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to something podcast. Here we talk about a month about how links can not only fight, but also win. We, that's the truth and we can talk about political strategy and we're making this podcast to share it with you. - In the last year, it was totally four about this overwhelming comeback of the left party and also in and I have spoken about the success factors behind the success of the left party and a part that, after a long time, in a very central progressive policy, comes a really good link to it. - Yes, my question is, I think you actually really heard about the left party. In Germany, there are definitely the green side of the Bundestagswahl, to put it on again, because now it's clear that they have lost the left party for a long time and that this middle class from Robert Habeck somehow came to its end so that he can walk a little bit. And that also marks on the current party tips. That's a classic green party tip, with Franziska Brandner as a reala from the representative of this reala and Felix Banerjag, the air from the left, and if you think that's a bit of an increase, then you notice that, especially for the Spanish, this party loses a left party in a very serious way and tries to somehow get a little stronger to look left and right again and somehow somehow maybe also the ecological question not forgotten and maybe I'm connected with social topics. So I feel that if I'm not the green party in the last weeks, I'm really really looking for a new course. So Habeck, the Habeck ESA, has completely changed the green background, completely in good, but eventually, I would say, he's in bad condition. And now the old person, I'm not even there, Robert Habeck has started, and then he's in the tree, he's started. Somehow it's now a bit of a question, what's next now? So green is again in a position, they have left a lot of things, they have also very much believed in reality and the question is now how can you again, to use Habeck's philosophy to win under the wings? Exactly, and I just looked at the last weeks a little bit, where are the successful examples, where green parties currently in the now-seeking political camp, the rise of fascism and at the same time the historical swede of the old people's parties, where green parties are still linked, somehow, to become stronger. Exactly, so how almost always we look at each other, from which we believe that you can learn, and that in this podcast the British green, they have been in the past year a new party, called "Sekpolenski", and are with a high age of 16 percent, that is, they have the questions, they came from 19-11 and have even the Labour Party, so one of the two big British parties actually held over and in the leadership of the left wing, which this success, they have taken a new party organization, also a clear eco-populist message to thank, namely the connection of climate and environmental issues with a clear anti-capitalist class environment and also pro-migration messages. A few of you have probably already been in the last year on social media, and I'm in front of a clip of him, totally viral, with his candidature for the party and I don't know how many people I have received from totally many people, somehow sent a video, with the comments "Oh, really, is this how can green messaging somehow be successful, what cool campaigns, contributions, completely different than the green here, to the country and so on, and that's why we thought, before we spoke, with Steve and Adam we'll just play the video and we'll talk about it again, so you know, a little bit more about how the sound of this green message in great Britain has been heard. The boats, the boats, the boats, yet something doesn't add up. Our NHS is crembleing, our wages are frozen, our rents are obscene, and our rivers are open-suits, and all those in power can do is blame the boats. Labour repeats it, like it's gospel, this idea that there's no money left, and then they stoke racist narratives about strangers destroying everything. Well, I call bullshit. Where do we draw the line? On the lies, the scapegoating, the idea that there's no money left in this country, there is plenty of money. More than ever, just not for us. Since Covid, there are more billionaires than they've ever been, and whilst their wealth doubles, ours has been stripped away, so no wonder people are angry. Because while we feel the walls are closing it, the elites, they got to work. They flooded Westminster with lobbyists. They made sure that forage was on every TV programme going day in, day out, telling the same lies. Because where do you think these stories come from? All this time they've been pointing at the small boats telling us they were the people to blame, but the problem this whole time was the super rich, and they're gods. People will say, "What does this have to do with the Green Party?" "I knew that all about trees and nature." Well, yes, defending nature is vital, and this is about human nature. The man he wanted to go on a beach and shoot people, he wasn't born like that. The same system that is poisoning our rivers, is poisoning our minds, all of us, and we have to draw the line. We have to change the system, not just so we can survive, but so we can all thrive. That's the Green Party I want to lead. We do not have a moment to waste. Join us. Let's hold that line together. We just heard it. In the video you can see, there are several Polish-style in a very open, dark jacket. A box that runs out of the line, especially if he speaks about it, that it is always spoken about the boat people. You can see the water, and the British box, and it also means that the nature and the environment are outside, and it's still moving. And it's a bit of a sort of. Yes, exactly. So, in the atmosphere, you have this video on the one hand, so this nature impression, so on one hand, this view on the sea, there is a grey light, then always a camera-fading, which also shows a very unique, beautiful landscape, which, somehow, probably let the green hair slide. And on the other hand, there is, somehow, this right-hand, and a piece of a fight-like conversation from St. Paulinski, that's how the camera runs out in the most recent part of the video. And yes, I was totally surprised. That's why it was something completely different. I was also surprised too, because of this very narrative, so clear, and also surprised, with a little positionation. About this message, and that was how St. Paulinski was successful, and overall, was the success of the green hair. Now we talk about Adam and Steve. Adam Ramsey is a journalist and a long-distance partner with Peter Green, who has really had a real age-hase, who has now made this vehicle. And Steve Jackson is the co-chair of Green's Organized, die Stärke auf Organizing der Partei mit Glieder setzt und außerdem mit der Arbeit davon sagt Polenzgibt. Und mit den beiden sprechen wir jetzt darüber, was die Grünen in UK gerade so erfolgreich macht und vor allem dann in der Nachrichtsprechung darüber, was die deutschen Grünen auch von ihnen lernen können. Jetzt viel Spaß beim Gespräch mit Steve und Adam über den Erfolg der britischen Grünen. [Musik] Jetzt haben wir Steve Jackson und Adam Remze joining us for the conversation of the success of the UK green party. Steve Adam, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. I like. Maybe the two of you, we are also interested in our listeners, are also interested to learn more about you, so maybe Steve you can start those more about your political background. My name is Steve Jackson. I joined the green party, actually relatively recently for how involved I've got. I joined in summer of 2024 just after the general election year and I had been working with the green party for quite a while, up until that point, but I had some kind of unfinished business to wrap up before I became a member. And I was, what I'd described as a slightly reluctant member of the Labour Party from 2012 to 2021. I spend most of that time being very good at the act of the social movements in grassroots and trade union campaigns, lots of migrant justice campaigning, lots of climate justice campaigning, lots of trade union work, other say. And I did a lot of kind of street anti-fascism stuff as well and basically all of the physical work I was doing felt very reactive and it's like we were always just fighting back against the latest kind of horrible thing that a local or national authority had done. As I say, I was a member of the Labour Party for some of those years, but slightly reluctantly. And it wasn't worth it, my energy. But kind of around 2023-24, it really figured that I needed to be part of a project that was building some sort of power or some serious counter-power and got quite seriously involved in the Greens. As things are joined the Green Party pretty much, I got involved in a project called Greens Organite which I'm sure will go on to talk about. I was involved in setting up Greens Organisers now and one of the co-chairs and at the start of last year as well I got introduced to Mr. Plansky, Zach and pretty quickly actually there was a bit of a whirlwind got us to help organise his leadership campaign which as Adam has outlined ended up winning by 85% and yeah that was a pretty incredible experience. And now here we are today where we're all trying to deal with the amazing I guess problem which is that we've got 100,000 people that have newly joined the party one more than that. That we're all trying very hard locally, regionally and nationally to do activate and of course we've got millions of people out there to reach. Yeah, that sounds like a real challenge. Adam, can you tell us a little bit about your political background too and how long you've been a part of the Green Movement and the Green Party? I grew up in rural Perthshire which is already added to the Scottish Islands and I joined the Scottish Greens in 2001 on our 15th and that was at the time the anti-globalisation movement or the ultrification movement was a big deal and I suppose I was kind of reading the books and the journalism around that as I was kind of discovering my politics. I suppose I've also grown up my parents were a rock mentalist and there were always copies of the new scientists magazine lying around the house so I grew up with a strong awareness of climate change and the kind of risk that posed and I suppose my political development rapidly followed from that to a sense that the whole economic system that capitalism has the problem. The Scotland at the time the Scottish Parliament had just formed in 1999 a Green MSB got elected to the Scottish Parliament so Greens had kind of become a thing in Scotland in a way that perhaps they wouldn't have been before and so it seemed like an obvious thing to do with that set of politics at the end of 15 to join the Scottish Green. Over the last 25 years my involvement has varied at some points I've been very intense involved in 2010 I stepped up a website along with a few other comrades called Bright Green which is still the main internal discussion site for the Green Policy. I was an idinoxid for a while where I worked for a student activist network of people and planet which campaigned on global justice and problem up issues. I was very involved in various social movements over the years, the student process in 2011. I was student president of Edinburgh for 2008 so I've been kind of involved in social movements, student unionism back in the day, my own trade union, I'm a journalist now, some extent. And then from around 2013-14 I haven't got that website I haven't got a journalist and my journalism policy membership has always kind of sat together around sometimes awkwardly and sometimes sometimes I rise back to the party, sometimes I've been at war on this length distance and a member that less involved and obviously I've been very excited by the recent development and probably in a sense being more actively involved or at least commenting on the parties and I have been for some of that time but I've been more on as a member. But there was a period I suppose from about 2010 to 15 when a generation of us were very involved, we kind of developed this analysis that the party should be bolder about being deafening, should be, you know, the thing that people knew about the Green Policy was our environmentalism and so we needed to be better at talking about what I would call our socialism or that all these parties kind of offered to people, often to say to people that had two mantras I used to say all the time back when I was really involved in organizing, so 2010 to 15, one was that most people in the country would be better off under Green Policy policies but we're absolutely never telling them that, you know, we need to start telling them that. And the second was that the choice in politics could be controversial or be ignored and the party almost always chooses to laugh at. I mean if you're not calling it a choosing former. So for me it feels like the Zappel-Anastagnebyship campaign and the fact it tapped into that century to the party was building on that analysis that a generation of us had developed over more than a decade in the policy. Well, that sounds like a really long term strategic process but now there's a fruit kind of too, yeah, that you can also see now in poll numbers. And then would you say that this also, I mean you've been a member of the party for a really, really long time and you said there was like a generation of people that were trying to kind of start off this change in the party. Would you say that there's now also, and maybe you can also add that in the number of people that have now joined the party that there's also a generational shift now in the Green Party? I think across British politics and I think you see this across American politics as well and a lot of Western politics. There's quite a big generational divide between people who came of age at some point in the kind of decades before 2008 crash and those came of age afterwards. And I see this quite easily on the cast by Graduated in 2008, right into the actual crisis. And so for people and forci now, people older than me, there's often this kind of underlying structure of feeling that they just want to get back to 90s to when things good and to, you know, if only we could return some kind of calm and normality and so on. So if people from sort of generation X and particularly those, but you know, there's this kind of feeling of all this disruption is abnormal and we just need to get back to pettings with us all. I think some people younger than that, there's much more often a sense that the whole system that the world is based on, the political system, whether you call that capitalism or the kind of political systems that we have are broken and that we need much more radical change to fix them. And in the green party, I think that plays out an interesting way because most people who join the green party are quite radical, right? The political common sense in the 90s was, you know, certainly in Britain and America, it was about triangulation, it's the only way to left can win by pretending not to be affluent. So you might believe yourself in nationalization, over talking to all the green party members so obviously I believe in all these radical changes, but in order to win elections, we have to pretend to be much more centrist than that. Whereas the kind of common sense for the generation younger than that, often, no, no, those are the popular bits. And actually all the sorts of, and what you might call it, you could liberalism, the older generation wants to talk about is often a lot less popular in a way than more radical economic tomorrow, is that often the party will be common, but perhaps it was a bit embarrassed to talk about it in the past. You have the "What do you do?" podcast, and we talk today with Adam and Steve about what the British green so successful does and what the German greeners can learn from it. If you know green or other people who are interested in the topic, then you click on the part of your podcast and check out this episode. And now we have fun. reminds us a little bit of the German Zertiai Demokratie and also there is a search in support for the extreme right, the party reform in the UK that is, yeah, reform is even stronger in the UK than the AFD is in Germany but we have like we can observe similar trends in the UK and in Germany. Steve could you talk a little bit about how the success of the UK Greens relates to the wider political context and specifically the weakness of labour and the search of support for fascism. Personally, I think the rise of reform and what we can call the rise of Greens, kind of in surgeon anti-establishment parties basically indicates a massive re-alignment of British politics away from the established parties, the old parties, labour in the Conservatives. You know, for about a century every general election and most general election seats and council elections with broadly a fight between labour and the Conservatives with the Liberals kind of floating as a spicy third option. Alok Rating in a paradigm where labour in the Conservatives, their popularity is completely crumbled and we've got reform in the Greens that are kind of in some way stepping into that space and the reason why I put those two phenomena together is because it's not like the Greens and reforms share any or many at all similarities in terms of policy but we do share an anti-establishment and a recent surge and a rise because people are looking away from those establishment options and the reason they're looking away from those options is because well they've done such an awful job and I think that's been the case for about four decades overall. It's really come to a head in the last 15 years of British politics ever since we had a conservative lived in coalition coming in and acting sweeping austerity and then we had 14 years of Tory rule and just living standards have absolutely crumbled in this country because of all the decades of a neoliberal paradigm and now really heavy austerity that's just crumbled are immunities working class institutions have been shattered like council housing is kind of a thing of the past. Working conditions have have collapsed. Wents and bills have just gone through the roof and we've really observed more recent years, particularly since the Kirby pandemic, like such in your face, start political corruption and incompetence and lying from these political leaders and I think the really key conjuncture for the key moment for the rise of both reform and now in some ways the Greens. It's kind of keyestarmate taking over the Labour Party in 2019 and it's kind of keyestarmate becoming Graham minister in 2024 because we had I'm sure most of your listeners will know about Corbinism between 2015 and 19 in particular. A delay the party was pretty socialist or maybe you might say left social Democrat and it was really inspiring people particularly young people. It really felt like something was changing. It really felt like there was hope and potential for a different politics and that you know failed for lots of reasons and then you had to keyestarm a company and take out the leadership of the Labour Party on a platform where he was basically promising that he would carry on Corbinism. He had these 10 pledges over the two years 2019 to 2021. It was also wireless. The Labour Party, not a coincidence, he abandoned all of these promises and then in the run up to the 2024 general election, Labour were making all these promises or they were rhetorically saying things are going to be different. We are going to do better. We are going to improve your lives. But for those who are kind of more engaged, you're looking beneath it and they're also refusing to offer anything. I think it was called the Mingvars strategy. They were basically operating like everyone just wanted the Tories gone, the Conservative party gone because they'd been in power for 14 years. Everyone wanted them out. And Labour were doing this so called Mingvars strategy where they didn't actually offer anything on policy because they didn't want to break the vase and the kind of illusion in my opinion, shatter. And then he's coming to power and well nothing has changed. People's living standards haven't got better. They've done some tweaks around the edges. They put a little bit more money into specific places. But they won't borrow to invest. They will not take on corporate power. They won't take on billionaires. They won't take on all the guards. They're cowardly and they're tweaking around the edges and they're doing this really uninspiring form of vanity. There's a. And that's just a long way of saying they've done a shit job. And now people are really lost trust in the political system. And reformers spinning in narrative. They've got a charismatic leader who's got so much money and legacy media on his side that they've been shoving messages down people's greatest of years. But you know, it's not all doing me glume because that really represents opportunity. There's opportunity to the green party. There's opportunity to communicate a message of hope and kind of pragmatic steps that we can take to improve people's living conditions. That's the reason why we're in such an exciting moment, I think. Yeah, it's really interesting. I also, when I was doing the research for this episode, I also came across the term "ecopupulism" to describe the new way the green party is communicating to the public. What characterizes this ecopupulism? So, Sonsal Mouf defines populism. It's a really great theory. So, populism has any kind of political, kind of rhetorical structure which creates a boundary. So, it says, you know, there's a venom in it. And obviously, you know, that can be on the right. The boundary can be, you know, white people and people who aren't white or migrants and, you know, the pure good people, you know, the citizens or whatever, but another way to construct a boundary is obviously in around class. And the point that Sonsal Mouf makes is that your left populism comes to a picture in moments when you have not just the working class struggling, but the middle class as well. And this capacity to produce, yeah, she argues, kind of unity between British and bourgeoisie and the working class against a quite small elite. And the oligarchitation of the world, of certainly the western world, the focus of wealth into a very small elite that happened over the last 20 or 40 years, produces a capacity for, you know, real populist moments as a supercourt. Now, obviously, she lots of different kinds of left populism around the world. And some of those, you know, the Mexico and then Alon, historically, was an anti-environmentalist, left populist. In, you know, you know, the artist's smur and so that, yeah, is a kind of, it's a sort of left populism, but it's kind of also against minority, you know, quite homophobic, they're anti-domestantistic, but they're in favor of, you know, really distributing wealth to the work of God, so they're left populism in that sense. So, I was the ideal populism as a cast group left populism, which embraces the sort of politics of ecologism, which for me is about the environment, but it's also about the kind of, ecology as an understanding of power as a intersectional. So, you know, the ecosystems of power through gender, race, class, and so on. So, Nika populism is a politics, which is populist in the sense it's trying to mobilize a nine percent or a large chance population against a small elite in a way that is inclusive of multiple genders, multiple different kinds of people, well, you know, understanding of the environment and so on. And I think that that's a pretty good, you know, way to understand wooden green projects, a way to do wooden green policy. Don't be afraid of the bad riddo, be afraid of saying, you know, those people are the bad guys, the people who are destroying the planet and it's fucking over the working class, have names and addresses, and many of those addresses have been pretty versionally. And, you know, but do that in an inclusive way, in a way that, you know, builds across different condoms, all the narrative across difference and isn't about kicking down, isn't that kind of smirk kind of left-populism. It's a left-populism that is based on, you know, the plurality and the many rather than a kind of a modulus single version of what needs to be us. One thing that I'll kind of acknowledge is the less populism. I've described myself as a less populist for many years and e-copopulism is slightly different things. And that kind of coin is expression e-copopulism, not the first person to use it, but the first person to make that prompt, certainly within the green party, within the way it was. And I do think e-copopulism is a slightly undefined concept, which is potentially a strength. If I am trying to define it though, I think it's helpful to remember, so Zach was actually leader of the green party for three years before he came, or before he ran to be leader. Throughout those three years, you know, he was doing lives public speaking, during the country, really well known within the green party, not cutting through that much outside. It is catch rose and you could ask most people in the green party what catch rose was a year ago. And they'd be able to tell you that it's there is no environmental justice without social racial and economic justice. And I think as a summation is e-copopulism, I think that's pretty good. I think populism is broadly about the 99% versus the 1%. And I think e-copopulism, as the most of that with e-cosocialism and being that it's a lens through which we see that struggle of the majority versus the minority or of the working class versus the ruling class. It's a lens through which we see that struggle and the ways in which environmental justice and the destruction of the climate are interlinked with all of the various ways as atoms articulated that the ruling class fuckers over. Nice, thank you for these very interesting perspectives, I think, on what an ecopopulism could be like. I think something that's definitely resonating in Germany too is the parties in their communication often being afraid to draw boundaries and to really spark controversy and also to link the ecological question to like ask versus them question which kind of regards to the lead or to the powerful and to kind to like powerful corporations versus the people, but most of the people that are really like suffering under the destruction of the environment or like environmental places and ecosystems to kind of round this a little more like every message also needs a really good messenger and see if you already mentioned Zach Polanski we will also link the Instagram of Zach and our show notes everybody can have a look because the videos are really really interesting pieces of message. Zach's political instincts are incredibly sharp. He's like Asik and the work he puts in and his energy are like insurmountable it's incredible to witness the way he connects with people like one-on-one or like in-person settings and meetings or whatever so inspiring into communication social media videos he's a generational communicator like he's one of the best communicators that you know I've been up close with a lot of politicians he's absolutely second to none but I think it's important to point out the the reason why stuff's going to wealth the green party and the reason why the membership voted so overwhelmingly like 85% remember 85% that's not it's not close it's not close to close it's not like two good campaigns we run the neighborhood made did arguments and the membership made a choice like that's a blowout that's that margin like I'm going to be honest none of us expected it in the campaign team none of us expected that margin and the reason there's that margin is because this is where the green party membership is at and the green party membership is there because look at the state of this country people are so disillusioned with politics they're crying out for leadership crying out for people to just stand up with principles and say yeah political systems for parks yeah like stuff's going really really badly and we want to change that and we here's here's our plans for changing that and I think maybe we'll get into this a little bit more because because I'm aware I've been talking for a few minutes few minutes who that's stopping but the role of the leadership leader of the green party I think is it's really distinct from other from other parties the way green's new leadership is really really different and I think the reasons for these successes like it's actually only fantastic job as one man but it's it's the apparatus and ecosystem of the party and the ground setting that people have done and the political arguments have been one that have led to this success yeah that's a really interesting point um I like how you and your answer there's a lot about Zach that's really really great but there's also a lot about the circumstances in which she's operating that's kind of enabling this steep rise really about through the last few months and now you were also hinting at the organizational structure of the Greens in UK you also founded our co-chairs the organization Greens organize an organizing platform within the party which I think will be very interesting for many of the German business us to hear about maybe you can tell us more about the particularity of the green understanding of leadership that you hinted at man also kind of get at the organizational structure that you've established that's working so well right now yeah thank you for that so in the green party of England and Wales which is the only one I'll kind of speak about with authority but I do understand there's lots of similarities with green parties in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe and the leader of the party does not set the policy does not decide how money is spent does not decide who runs in elections all of that stuff is decided by members the leader of the Green Party the official power that they have is they sit on two national committees the Green Party Council and the Green Party's executive along with a bunch of other people are elected to those committees they sit there along with the deputies there's always three people in the leadership office so at the moment we've got Zach and two fantastic co-deputies leaders and they sit on those committees and in terms of their formal power that's pretty much it that's pretty much the only power that they've got of course they have a huge platform they have huge influence they always have a say in the kind of campaigns parties running maybe might be influencing policy discussions that members are having maybe might be influencing staffing decisions but in terms of their formal power that's kind of it and I think that's a good thing personally and I think that lends itself to a model where the leader of the party is kind of a spokesperson and it's up to the members to do the on the ground stuff make campaigns happen to make the policy happen and to enact it and to change people's lives and that's kind of where Greens Organize comes in in some respect so Greens Organize is a membership organization that runs that's completely independent from but runs in parallel with the Green Party of England and Wales we set up Greens Organize or go in the second half of 2024 and we launch publicly with a document called the Manchester Manifesto which is available if you're interested in go you can go to our website Greens Organize.uk and you can read the founding document and the way I like to summarise that founding document is that we observing that the litical landscape of the UK and observing the characteristics historically and at that point of the Green Party that Adam and I have spoken about had a vision that the Green Party needed to step into its potential and also step up to its responsibility to the people of this country and step into the opportunity of the political moment by turbocharging itself and transforming itself into a mass party of the left a mass party of the working class with members in every community organising those communities making change and building power and organising beyond elections and now Greens Organize has several thousand paying members at the moment we have three members of staff we have a steering group I think it's fair to say we have quite a lot of influence over the party and we've had a decent amount of influence in terms of that laying the groundwork in some ways more recently for this kind of rapid transformation of the party and I think Adam in particular has done some really brilliant work looking at the kind of long term history of these tendencies in the Green Party and I think Greens Organize is really in terms of the recent history where those arguments have been had and won them advanced. We've talked a lot about the history of the Green Party and also in relation to the historic weakness of Labour and somehow to me it seems a little bit that the Greens could become or replace the Labour Party in the longer run and maybe in the UK but I think that one important difference also when talking about eco-populism compared to more classical forms of left-wing populism is that there is no clear class base for Green parties especially when compared to Labour parties and in Germany during the last government we had a coalition the Greens were in coalition with the Social Democratic Party here and the FTP and in this period it seems to me that one problem of the Greens was really that it was unclear what the social base of their politics were so in opposition this alliance of very pluralistic groups worked quite well to build up public support for the for the party but as soon as they moved from opposition to policy this class alliance somehow fell apart and wasn't able to mobilize subsistence for the party what are your thoughts and Adam on this aspect this question of the class base of the Green Party in the UK and Scotland yeah I mean that's obviously in challenge right the Greens have you look right across Europe there are these kinds of Green Party or that he chendered sees across Green politics in Europe there's a kind of eco-liberal you might see is more middle class tendency and there's a kind of eco-socialist what you might see is more working class of like tendency and yeah that's one way to understand the split in Green politics within any Green Party in Europe but also between different Green parties across Europe and I think one way to understand what's happened in the UK's Green Party is both Scottish Greens and people think they're well also actually the all nourished Greens and all that's on the story there is that over the last 15 20 years they have gradually become more clearly eco-socialist rather than eco-liberal you know growing that direction obviously the German Green Party is a story that your list is a much more familiar with the Noem but you could argue that it's eco-liberal wing is much more dominant than it's equivalent in the UK parties is and and obviously you know as someone from that broader eco-socialist end of the party I would argue that eco-liberism is always going to end up with the problems and contradictions of capitalism that eco-liberism tends to point itself and therefore the political message that produces you know I think that's either problem with German Greens or in and it's a you know problems at Green councils of occasion behind in the UK on the brief moments they've had they've had power sometimes and I think what I'd say is that the enormous growth of the Green Party things are well particularly but also the growth of some extent of the Scottish Greens over the last year is obviously being in in that eco-socialist direction to the new membership has joined in the current context and therefore it is more from that a background with is more likely to have more of a class-based analysis at least to some extent what's also true though is that the mid 20th century model of you know a mass working class political party as seen by Labour or the SDP or whatever was based on essentially an industrial view of class. You know, from understanding of class in Britain is often based on this idea that people who work in factories are working class, people who own factories, a middle class, and in a modern economy, obviously things are not well complicated than that. So I suppose what I'm saying is that if you look at the actual membership of the Green Party and what they earn and how likely they are to own their house or not versus membership and the other party in the UK, the Green Party is clearly more working class than on the party. But it's true that it doesn't grow from that kind of historical understanding of class that Labour has. But the average Labour member in the UK is Rich, doesn't he have between the UK and has been for about 15, 20 years. That's not a new thing. And so, you know, what people mean is that Green Party members tend to be university, but in a world where half of people go to university, that's what you're earning, right? That's a different phenomenon. So class is complicated. And in a way, you know, when I think about what geocopiness means, for me as I say, so is about understanding the complexity of interconnections. So absolutely, you know, in a sense, believe it, they kind of mark just understanding class based on relationship, means production. But in a modern economy, it means production is complicated. And you can't just kind of have that romanticised industrial view of the work class from it to itself, we'll apply it to 2024 if you can. And so, we're not going to be able to do that. So, we're not going to be able to do that. because the membership might be, but damn, you go to a meeting, you go to a conference, like you look at who's running a local party, and like the working class is so underrepresented in those spaces. And that kind of goes across to who's creating the comms, who's crafting the comms outside of that kind of top down level. And I think in terms of that shifting membership of the party and that kind of politically political paradigm shift thing, I don't think that's translated into who the powerholders are, and I'm interested in powerholders at the local level, the bottom up. I don't think these changes have translated into who's holding power at those levels. And I think the green party, when we're talking about the comms combining redistribution, anti-racism, environmentalism, I don't think the green party has done a good job at communicating nationally, locally or regionally about anti-racism, about our anti-racist principles. I think we do talk about migration and order violence and the rights of refugees, but I don't think we talk effectively about the issues that are facing global majority people, people of colour in our society. And I think we could do a hell of a lot better at talking about the ways in which society is structured and the ways in which that is disadvantaging all of us, particularly those of us at the sharper ends of this phenomena. And I think we could do a lot better job of tying together these narratives. I do think that and others are doing a great job of telling stories that counterbalance the stories that have been told by legacy media, by reform, by Farage. And I do think storytelling is the thing we have to do, but I think we are yet to see a particularly coherent and particularly powerful combination of narratives that is advancing a truly transformative vision for our wee restructure, societal, political and economic relations in this country, which is what we desperately need. It's very interesting. I think it's like this is maybe also where a party structure meets society because we have that problem often activism that the people that I have time to actually like the actual time to be powerholders at local levels and to put in the time and activism and also naturally in party organisation, other people that are not struggling day to day to make ends meet, but those are mostly the people that kind of have middle class, well paid jobs that have kind of some spare time to do some organising beyond their work. I think we're familiar with the problem and if you come up with some solution, maybe let us know in the future. I wish perhaps being a little bit hard on the greens because it is absolutely in most political spaces, party political or activist spaces. Yeah, like you say that problem is everywhere, but it doesn't mean it's not a problem of it. Definitely, definitely, and I think it's really important to think about how we can reorganise structures to make it possible for people to still be active even if they have like limited time budgets, that they can contribute. But I find that this is also, as you say, Steve, a really important issue when it comes to crafting messages because like the fact that political messaging are reaching a fewer and fewer moving fewer and fewer people is also probably an effect of this divide between the social background of people crafting messages and the ones that are supposed to be reached by them. And so this also becomes, it's not only like a political problem, but also just a practical problem of politics when it comes to mobilising people to vote for political parties. Sorry for the short term. You hear what the podcast is doing. We are all set, free and free. That can only be thanks to the support of our fellow Dinda who support the podcast and the sense in double pack support. If you are not there yet, then you can just click on the link in the show notes. Now it's much more fun to listen to. I also want to talk about one piece of messaging though that I think is very interesting with the UK Greens, especially in comparison to the German Greens. Because the German Greens have, especially in the last coalition, they were part of, they have really kind of adapted a tone against migrants that you could call kind of conservative light. So they don't put it on the forefront. They try not to talk about it too much, but when they talk about it, it's still often very much connected to security issues, to safety in Germany, to kind of making home countries more safe so people can return to stuff like that. And I find it very interesting that Zagpolanski at least has taken a very bold stance in addressing the issue and in saying, this is really, we don't have a migrant problem. It's kind of, it's the right that it's only talking about migrants to diverge attention from real problems. And I would just be very interested in, if you know, maybe how this decision came about to kind of take a bold stance on this issue, which I think most people are almost parties are afraid of and also how it's working. For me, the two reasons why it was a very good idea for Zach to stand up for migrants at the centre of his kind of early political messaging as he came out of the book. The first is that there is a large portion of the UK population, which is absolutely horrified by and fed up with the combination of the tabloids and reform, but then also labour. And attacking migrants and blaming migrants for the country's problems. Yes, there is a large portion of people who believe that rhetoric, there may be 34% of people who have a basic anti-multiposition, and there's also a 30%, 40% who do not have that position and were absolutely furious with the labour passing of failing to stand up against that rhetoric. And so that obviously leaves a huge political space for Zach to do that. The first reason is that you're speaking to a large chunk of population who are in that portion of people who are most likely to be about green, they've had a most left-wing, most progressive half of the population who are looking to someone to say that and read it no one wants. And obviously being the person doing that gives you political credit. And the second reason, and this is the thing that green has been afraid of in the past, is that, for sure, it's a good thing in a five-party system. Just being talked about is good. And greens have often been afraid of being talked about because they don't like being criticized. When in fact, having the right-wing papers attack you and talk about how they hate you is a very good way to get people on the left to like and to see, you know, these, you know, if people don't trust greens, because you know, these might just be sort of middle-class torries on bikes as the stereotype used to get used to run, then being in the trenches with people, being attacked by the right-wing press and continuing to speak up to them anyway, is a very good way for them to see that you are on their side and you're, you know, waiting to take it. And the third reason is that people in general, huge numbers of voters are very fed up with politicians who they see as saying whatever they need to say to get elected. So voters hate the idea that, you know, you're saying this, you're just saying, "It's what I want to hear." And, you know, therefore, I want to vote for you to get them trusted. And people, if you don't trust politics, then they're more like, "Device the right," because, you know, they're going to believe in the market or, you know, also a sharing power ever instead of bureaucracy. So, you don't even even don't like what you say, or more like you support you if they think that you're honest and you're saying what you think, because they think you're just saying what they want to hear. And so, you know, even people who are minded to be concerned about migration tend to prefer a politician who says, "No, I don't think that," and then gets attacked for it, because they think, well, at least they're honest and say what they think, rather than all these lies. And so, you know, it's a very effective strategy, I think, to say things that you think are true, and then be attacked by saying it in a world where people think politicians are always lying and say whatever they think is popular, because people will then think, "Well, when this guy says something I do believe in, I can trust him." You know, he doesn't just say it because they think it's popular, he's saying it because he actually means it, and so, when he promises me, you know, that he's good at listening, like, "Do you want?" I can trust him on that. I'm there for a vote for him, even though I disagree about the previous thing. So, yeah, I'm going to very effective comes. Yeah, I just want to add a couple more factors for why I think talking about migrants and refugees rights is so important. I do agree with what Adam said. I think it's also so too important to point out there's a class element, and the reason why states are so insistent on managing the flow of migration is fundamentally to provide a legal force that will take up jobs in the economy. I kind of disposable and movable legal force, and there's so much interaction between the politics of class and the politics of the border, and often the people who are at the sharpest end of border violence or other people at the sharpest end of class hierarchies. And that presents loads of opportunities from a commas perspective. One example, a report came out recently about the paid disparities within organizations in the UK, and about pay ratios, so the ratio between the lowest paid member of staff and the payment of the highest paid member of staff, normally, if you do executives, and the company at the top of this list, three hundred and maybe that's from memories to give you some wrong pay ratio. Pires pay ratio is a company called Mighty, which is a massive outsourcing facilities management company. Notorious for screwing over its staff and stocking money from the British state and paying it to its private boards, investors. There also a company that runs prisons, detention centres, border patrols, immigration removal services. There are companies who hire the staff that knock down, knock on people's doors and drag them away and change the immigration detention and then and then put them onto deportation flights. There's so much interaction between the violence of the border and class violence and that dovetails into the other reason why it's so important to highlight this is because migrants in refugees across Europe and in the UK are some of the most under attack communities. In addition to so absolutely fucking abject, it's so so important that we fight for those people's rights and I think a similar thing is true for the trans people in this country and that's another reason why Zach and the Green Party now having dealt with some historic poorly thinking individuals now all trans rights so much and I think those are quite the entire. I think that's right. I think one way to frame both of those things is that Rishanhan's very deep profound crises and the ruling class seem to construct a series of moral panics against minorities to distract from dealing with those crises. It's not the only reason I thought about those things and they're reporting they're right but that's one of the things they're doing and lots and lots of people see through that. Hey, it's important to stand up for minorities to do so right. It's important because it's a distraction from talking about the real problems in the world and the country and how you fix them. See, it's a good idea because people you can see through that and want to talk about the real cause and the problems want you to do that. They want people to say no, stop fucking bullying trans people and migrants and get on with sorting out the actual problem to the country. These are all really good points and it also reminds me of how the German Greens in the last general election here in Germany really lost support at the moment in time where they moved away from a pro migration stance because they were so afraid of this controversy on conflict and the moral panic on the right that they tried to sugarcoat a little bit the conservative party by moving towards them on migration and this is like a really big difference to how the Green Party communicated back in 2019 where they were clearly giving a voice to the support for migrant people. I mean to come onto the German Greens, I think you see three really clear examples, right? So there's that balance in the Greens in the UK where response to those sort of cultural moral panics has been clear moral stance. You could also point it to the direction of her in Mandami in New York, you know, his central message about cost of living parts at no point was he willing to throw a crowd of people under the bus or migrants under the bus, he always took clear moral positions on those issues and both of those are very successful examples of how to do politics from the left in the world versus the German Greens who've taken the source of you know don't talk about those issues, it's embarrassing, you know try to avoid them triangulate, you know try to just focus on your call message, the source of what you might describe as the comms advice from the 1919s and it turns out in 2025 as well as being morally wrong, that's also just ballistic disastrous. Yeah, I think like right now in Germany the migration issue is amongst the two or three issues that the party is most divided on and I just read when I was doing the research that they now have a working group put in place where the party leader Felix Banachak is working on like how to address this diversity within the party when it comes to migration. I think it is it would be really like all also electorally speaking really important for the Greens to repost it themselves towards like clear solidarity messaging but also policy once they and public office not because otherwise this also becomes part of this weird political game of when there are no position they are clearly on the side of the migrants and once they decide on policy they and they do everything that hinders people to to come into the country. I mean Steve and Adam you guys have just described how the success of the Green Party in the UK has been enabled by eco populism and also by building on clear class politics within this and also beyond this environmentalist paradigm speaking to a German podcast now could you and also probably a lot of listeners will be members of the German Green Party just to sum it up what would be your case for moving the German Greens towards the left instead of moving it even more to the political centre and to to centrist because in Germany the like there's like a even like a rule inside of the German party that they say we members are very left wing but to win majorities we need to move towards to the centre this is like one of the core identity issues in the German Green Party so maybe you can can address this a little bit in your in your answer. Look I think there's two very important reasons why the German Greens shouldn't move to the centre. The first is the less important one which is electoral strategy. The idea of triangulation that you move to the centre in order to win vote was really but you became popular across the western world in the 90s after the left and built in and the generation on voters can see what you're doing so they just take your line to them no longer works because they can see you're working and they just don't trust you anymore when they see that you're saying things you don't really believe. The way to read elections is to express your opinions it's also the case that you know particularly voters under the age of you have voted to come evades since financial crisis and it applies to some of the integer me as well although more so in the UK more left wing than those alderman and see that capitalism is in crisis because it's very clear for around the world that capitalism is in crisis and unless you can express that then you're not going to win election but the second reason is actually much more profoundly important which is that capitalism is killing the planet. Germany is a major capitalist power as is in the UK unless we come into you know managed to radically change the way our governments operate then the planet will burn climate change will run away but crisis of capitalism will continue all of our products will it's a moment there power and we'll see if we continue to rise the fascism around the planet only solution to those problems lie in serious anti-capitalist we might try to take eco socialist analysis and so being a centrist in Germany at the moment is literally pointless. Why what's the point in coming in and maintaining the state as quo? You know if you're a green then you need to save the planet you need to stop the rise of fascism and that means you need radical change and you can't deliver radical change from the centre obviously not the percentage by propping up the state's quo and the state's quo is what's killing the world. I think the thing to add is that power inherently has a moderating influence or rather maybe I should say positions of state power inherently have a moderating influence and I think that's what the German Greens have experienced in the past is what we're green's organised with fair to deny any document as electoral assimilation which can mean triangulating your position because you wrongly think that to appeal to voters you need to come across most interest but to me it means when you get into or within the proximity of positions of state power you start to be so lobbied by the interest of capital by private companies by interest groups by international domestic corporate lobbyists you start to become so in hoc to financial markets so worried about appeasing the senior civil servants or authority officers who are themselves for lots of varied reasons tend to be very conservative and very unimaginative basically if you get into power if you are not incredibly seriously and in a very disciplined way pushing back against the moderating influences of the state and the moderating influences of state power you're going to be useless there you're going to be rubbish and you're not going to do anything even if you think I will do this electorally so that we can get some power because we're the good guys and when we have powers we're going to do good stuff nope it's not a neutral thing you have to be actively undermining the influences of power and the state long before you get there to even have a chance of doing anything useful and bringing people along with you when you are there if you ever get there well thank you so much these are great words to the end of our show today thank you so much for joining us from the UK and Scotland Steve and Adam it was a really interesting talk and I think our listeners will take a lot to think about also for the development of the Greens in Germany thank you so much thank you thanks so much for having us (upbeat music) So, wie nach jeder Folge sitzen Ingen und ich jetzt, nach dem Interview noch zusammen und besprechen jetzt auf Deutsch noch mal, was so für uns die wichtigsten strategischen Takeaways aus dem Gespräch mit Steve und Edden waren. Dabei interessiert mich vor allem die Frage, ja, was wir hier in Deutschland auch für diesen strategischen, Neuorientierungsprozess der deutschen Grünen von den Englischen lernen können. Also das wär's für mich so, die große Frage jetzt auch für die Nachbesprechung in "Was denkst du dazu?" Vielleicht lohnt sich dafür erst mal so ein bisschen auf die Paralleelen und auch die Unterschiede zu gucken, die deutsche Parteienlandschaft mit der britischen Teil oder halt auch trennt. Also was man ja, fast ja, glaube ich, Paralleelen sind, sind die Schwäche der Labour Party gerade, die man in Deutschland sieht mit der Schwäche der Sozialdemokratie, auch vielleicht noch mal so eine Paralelität darin, dass sie noch mal so eigentlich relativ unvermutter Gewonnen haben, in Deutschland mit der Ampühe und der Olaf Scholz und Großbritannien jetzt mit der aktuellen Regierung unter Kierstama, die von David geführt wird. Und dass es gleichzeitig halt eine erstagende rechtspopulistische Partei gibt in Großbritannien Reform, Nigel Farage, an den anderen sich vielleicht manche Höhren und Höhre auch. Der hat sich ja auch schon während des Brexits besonders hervogetan, damit für den Brexit zu werben und macht aktuell in Großbritannien einfach sehr stark Stimmung gegen Migranten und Migranten. Und für ja, da haben wir einen sehr erfolgreichen Kurzer, sehr zwanglachtuellen, umfragen die stärkste Partei in Großbritannien und in Deutschland natürlich Parallel dazu, die erstarken mehr AfD, die nicht bei 29 Prozent ist und Glück, doch und gut. Aber die dann noch ja dieses Jahr, die ersten Ministerpräsidenten stellen könnte nach den Landtagswahlen in Sachsen-Anhalt im Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, also auch auf einem Erfolgskurs ist. Und sich in diesem Kräfteverhältnis als Grüne Partei zu positionieren, dass es sich halt eine Paralelität der Unterschied ist, dass es in Großbritannien keine deins Partei gibt. Und gleichzeitig eine deutlich stärkere FDP-artige Partei, die der World Democrats. Ja, vielleicht zu dem Punkt mit der Linkspartei, das fand ich noch mal ganz interessant. Ich fand im Gespräch mit Steve und Adam hatten das auch so ein bisschen gehört, so vom Sound, dass da das Grüne Projekt und dieses Projekt der Linkspartei, wie es das hier gibt, einfach in einer Partei organisiert ist. Und dass sich so ein bisschen ja viel stärker miteinander verschmolzen sind. Ich finde daran sieht man auch, wie so, ja, so was, was erst mal trocken klingt, wie das Wahlrecht und das politische System eines Landes, dann halt so so bestimmten Ausformungen führt in den Parteien, die dann auch so politisch, miliös, auf eine bestimmte Art und Weise, zusammen oder auch getrennt, von dann organisieren. Und für Adam und Steve ist es völlig klar, dass die UK-Grün ganz klar links stehen von der Labour-Party, also der britischen SPD und dass sie halt auch antikapitalistisch sind und diese ganzen Sachen, wohingegen das hier bei den deutschen Grünen einfach eine sehr ungeklärte Frage ist. Also man hat das geschöne Mitgliedschaft gibt's auf jeden Fall immer wieder Leute, die sagen, ja, es ist also die Degro's, Ecke, das ist ein, also die Krisen, die wir aktuell sehen sind, Krisen, die das Kapitalistische System produziert, Wachstum ist das Problem und so weiter. Aber in den Spitzen der Partei sieht es dann sehr anders aus. Da gibt es eigentlich eher starke Vertreter von so einem grünen kapitalistischen Projekt, das konnte man ja unter der Ampel auch gut sehen. Da fand ich es im ersten Schritt interessant zu sehen, dass es ein wichtiger Unterschied, dort gibt es keine Linkspartei, deswegen können die Grünen dieses Fäte auch ganz anders besetzen. Aber dann übertragen aus Deutschland auch so für mich einfach das Fragezeichen, inwieweit das hier gut funktionieren könnte, so stark auf den Linkskoers innerhalb der grünen Partei zu setzen, also ob da nicht am Ende die Linkspartei dann immer überzeugener und authentischer ist, was denkst du denn dazu hinten? Ja, ich glaube, das ist natürlich schwer. Also ich kann auch nicht in die Glasgrüe gucken und das natürlich in der Form, irgendwie schwer zu sagen. Was ich dabei nochmal bedenken werde, finde ist, dass die deutschen Grünen einfach an einem bisschen anderen Punkt sind, weil ja diese Verschiebung zum Zentrum hin ist, weil ja einfach stark ein Projekt von Robert Haabek, dass sie in den letzten zehn Jahren auch durch Laufen haben, mit der Ampel natürlich besonders stark, so sehr in Regierungsverantwortung zu gehen. Und das ist da einfach wirklich diese beiden Flüge gibt, von dem auch der Realoflüge, wenn wir sehen, so nennt auch einfach in den letzten Jahren sehr gestärkt wurde. Und manchmal von außen finde ich es auch nicht so leicht zu sagen, wie viel von diesem Linkenflügel eigentlich noch übrig ist, oder wie viel von diesen Linken Leuten innerhalb der grünen Zwischen- jetzt auch zur Linkspartei gegangen sind. Was man ja auf jeden Fall während der letzten Wahl gesehen hat, war, dass die Grünen stark nach links verloren haben in der Wähleinschaft. Also das ist auf jeden Fall auch für diesen Realokurs innerhalb der grünen von den Wähler in eine Kürzung ab. Und da glaube ich schon, dass es aber einige, die man zurückholen kann. Also Leute, die einmal sich entschieden haben, die Linkspartei zu wählen, vielleicht auch ein bisschen um die Grünen abzustrafen, machen das nicht zwangsweise wieder. Sondern die können glaube ich schon durch eine Großkoreaktur auch davon überzeugt werden, wieder grün zu wählen. Gerade wenn sie es vielleicht an manzustellen, auch mit der Dingeneopositionsarbeit nicht so zufrieden sind. Wobei ich dann, also wenn du das so praktisch ausdrückt, das ist natürlich so aus der Partei-Taktischen Sicht, klar, dass jetzt Leute bei den Grünen darüber nachdenken, die können wir jetzt an der Linkspartei wieder zurückgewinnen. Gleichzeitig würde ich sagen, für einen größeres linkes politisches Projekt ist damit nicht gewonnen. Wir bewegen uns dann nur in so einem Rhein-Null-Summspiel. Shing es schon mich vor allem die Frage unter den Gesichtspunkten, dass die Linkspartei jetzt in Deutschland so stark ist, was ja auch gut ist. Wie kann eine grüne Strategie aussehen, die dazu führt, dass das link lager im politischen Raum größer wird? Und es da nicht irgendwie immer nur so einen Kern zwischen. Das würde ich als völlig unproduktiv sehen. Ja, ich glaube, die Frage ist so ein bisschen, also da ist der Eingang mit mirere Fragen drin. Die eine Frage ist, wo holt man zusätzliche Wähler inher, wenn man jetzt sagt, die Linkspartei, der überlässt man, so ein bisschen das link gefällt, dann muss man natürlich in die Mitte gehen. Das würde also bedeuten, eher in Richtung so eines Grün-Diberalismus? Ja, das würde aber natürlich bedeuten, dass das auch aufgrund von grünlen Positionen geht. Und das ist was, das für mich auch einer der Linkspartei noch müssen ungeklärt ist, wie stark da eigentlich eine Form von Ökosozialismus oder Ökropopolis muss, tatsächlich auch so ein Kern wird. Weil ich aktuell eher den Eindruck habe, auch ein bisschen wie Adam und Steve das beschrieben haben, dass die Linken, dann wenn man gute oder sozial gerechte Klimapolitiken bringt, die alle gut finden, aber dass die nicht von sich aus der Partei generiert werden. Und ich glaube, dass da schon einfach nach wie vor die Frage ist, dass wenn man sagt, die ökologische und die Klimafrage sind, eigentlich die entscheidenden Fragen unserer Zeit, in denen sich auch soziale Fragen kristallisieren und bündeln, dann braucht man eigentlich schon eine Partei, die Rühne sage ich jetzt. Also die ökologische Frage, auf wirklich nach vorne stellt, und von der ausgehend die sozialen Fragen adressiert. Da sehe ich schon nach einer wichtige Aufgabe für die Grün. Da muss man auch sagen, dass da die Linkspartei einfach in ihrer ganzen Legacy auch sich nicht unerlich gut hervorgetan hat für so ein ökosotistisches Projekt. Also dass kann man der Record jedenfalls, wenn man jetzt in die Vergangenheit schauen will, kann man ja nicht schauen, dann ist der da erst mal sehr viel Schächter als bei den Grün. Und ich fand es tatsächlich auch noch mal sehr interessant jetzt in den Gespräch, noch mal so ein dezidierten Ökopopulismus darüber, den man nachzudenken. Also nicht jetzt zu sagen, wir müssen einfach populistischer werden. Das ist jetzt die Antwort auf die Krise der deutschen Grün-Partei. Wir versuchen jetzt auch einfach den Klassentkampf auszurufen und jetzt endlich das zu machen, was klassische Linkeparteien immer schon gemacht haben. Sondern das kann denn ein, das besondere vielleicht auch sein, ein Ökopopulismus. Ich fand, da ich jetzt im Nehmenspräch so ein paar Aspekte mitgenommen, zum Weiteren darüber nachdenken. Vielleicht können wir da ja noch mal ein bisschen darauf eingehen, auf diesen Ökopopulismus, weil mir das tatsächlich auch neuer Begriff war, den es aber irgendwie ganz spannend finde, weil sonst sprechen wir auch immer im Gegensatz zu den Verschisten, nur darüber, ob es jetzt einen Linkenpopulismus braucht, aber die Frage, nach dem Ökopopulismus habe ich in Deutschland das Kurs jetzt noch nicht so wahrgenommen. Was ja jeder vom Populismus einfach gemein ist, dass man so eine starke Grenzziehung vornimmt zwischen der Masse und den wenig, die profitieren oder so einen Eliten des Kurs und dass man sich nicht vor kontroversen schäuert, also dass man auch sagt, um wen geht es ja eigentlich? Für wen machen wir Politik oder auch Gegenwähnen machen wir Politik? Wer profitiert eigentlich gerade von ökologischer Zerstörung und auf besten Kosten geht, dass man sozusagen diese Grenzen sehr klar macht. Und dann fand ich interessant und das schlägt natürlich mein Herz aus der Klimagerechtigkeit, wie im Kommtör, dass sie diese Gerechtigkeit frage darin so stark gemacht haben. Also dass sich den Eindruck hatte, für sie ist eigentlich der spiegende Punkt im Ökopopulismus auch eine Form von Umweltgerechtigkeit. Also würde ich jetzt mal hinzufügen den Menschen, einen allen Menschen, ein gleiches Leben in einer intakten Umwelte ermöglichen, dass dann aber halt auch mal zu verbinden mit anderen Formen von Gerechtigkeit, also so tanken über Gerechtigkeit zu gehen und dann zu sagen, damit verbindet sich natürlich auch eine Form von Gerechtigkeit von Intersektionaler Gerechtigkeit, auch ein Antio-Assismus, ein Antidiskriminierungspolitik. Genau, auch nach Form von Klassenpolitik, die Untersomgerechtigkeit, Aspekt läuft. Und dass das im Grunde so ein bisschen der große Wert, das unter dem sich das zusammen fassen lässt. Ja, ich finde das total interessant. Ich muss da irgendwie jetzt gerade auch noch mal denken an ein Interview, was ich mit Felix Banner-Shack jetzt vor der Infobereitung auf die Folge noch mal gelesen habe. Er versucht halt ganz deutlich aktuell, stärker auf so eine etwas populistische Regine, die Grünen zu bringen, stärker wieder als linke Partei zu positionieren, auch wenn es aktuell aus meiner Sicht nicht wirklich glaubhaft ist. Das ist risch von der Regierungs Bank jetzt auf einmal, die zu tun, als würde man ganz andere Sachen wieder wollen. Aber wo ich auch denke, dass Leute wie Felix Banner-Shack jetzt von den britischen Grünen noch mal lernen können, ist nicht einfach jetzt auf den Stahlarbeit herzugehen und zu sagen, dass der um den geht es jetzt praktisch bei den Grünen, weil das ist einfach ein klassischer industrieller Populismus. Der praktisch die klassischen Industriarbeiter versucht, gegen das Kapital zu mobilisieren, sondern eben zu schauen. wo diese ökologische Gerechtigkeitsfrage darin raum hat. Und ich finde da gibt es dann eben viel naheliegende auch in der Erzählung, die Brücke auch noch mal zu diesen Menschenrechtsfragen und auch zu Themen wie Flucht und Migration. Vielleicht können wir da jetzt als nächstes mal kurz zu überreden. Flucht und Migration ist ja auch so eine ganz ganz wichtige Botschaft, die die britischen Grünen jetzt so nach vorne stellen, um auch eine Polarisierung zu Reform aufzumachen und sich damit eben so im Zentrum der Debatte zu positionieren. Was war denn denn da, Punkte, in denen wo du denkst, da kann man was von mitten nehmen, da kann man was lernen. Vielleicht bevor ich darauf komme, noch ganz kurz eine Ergänzung zum Ökopropolismus. Was ich interessant fahr, da haben wir nicht so darüber gesprochen, jetzt in dem Interview, aber wenn man sich die Videos mit Sack Polenz gern guckt, aber auf Instagram, dann beschreibt der zum Teil auch als Barbeweg, der sich oft in der Natur draußen, wenn man sieht das oft als Hintergrund und zum Teil es geht auch einzelnen, dass es hier in allen Videos natürlich aber es geht auch einzelner Videos, wo er wirklich Natur und Umwelt und das Umwelt erleben halt anspricht und manchmal Robert Habelkertzwerch, manchmal ein bisschen übertrieben mit den Ponys, aber mit den Wildfärden, mit den Wildfärden, sorry, aber so eine, sich da wieder auch zu trauen, so eine emotionale Nähe zu, ökologieherzustellen. Das ist glaube ich, das kann, glaube ich, auch nochmal ein interessanter Aspekt von so einem Ökopropolismus sein, sollte nicht, dass das so ganz und handelt schön stellt. Genau, zu dem Migrationsnarrativ, das fand ich total interessant, weil es ja wirklich von dieser Grundstrategie aus geht, zu sagen, dass man auch auf kontroversen setzt und auch grenzen zieht zu den politischen Gegenübern und dazu sehen, dass die Grünen halt im Grunde wirklich der Gegenentwurf sind, zu den Rechtspopulisten und das ist ja eigentlich in Deutschland, wie wir auch im Gespräch schon gesagt haben, wirklich 2021 auch eine super erfolgreiche Strategie gewesen zu sagen, dass die Grünen im Grunde der Gegenentwurf sind, zu AfD und dann, eckkelt es halt auch schon, Teil 4 Sinn, das Hauptthema von der anderen Seite aus anzugehen. Und irgendwie ist das im letzten Bundestagswahl, kam es dann so ein bisschen mit Robert Habelkertz Mittekurs und dann glaube ich auch, dem sich die CDU als Potenzial in Koalitionspartnern ich verprälen zu wollen. Das ist ja wieder ein bisschen unter die Rede geraten oder natürlich hatten die Grünen der Legislaturperiode auch mit dem GAS entschluss und auch mit anderen politischen. "Derenlos!" Politische Entscheidungen, das schon so ein paar Prinzipien einfach über Bord gebrochen. Aber das finde ich ethisch sowieso scheiße, aber auch politisch strategisch sieht man, da finde ich es ja dann im Beispiel der UK-Grün, dass es vielleicht wirklich auch einfach ein Fehler ist. Und das ist sich lohnen würde da wieder reinzugehen. Der Zapunkt noch, was ich da richtig spannend fand, war auch Adams-Aussage nochmal dazu, dass das gut ist, wenn die gegnerische Presse, also die konservative Presse einen Scheiße findet und weil das sozusagen den eigenen Leuten vermittelt, man ist am richtigen Ort. Und das fand es total interessant, weil ich das Gefühl habe, genau das ist so ein Problem, auch der Grünen, dass sie immer von allen gemacht werden wollen und auch in der FHZ und auch in der Welt noch das Netteinterview haben wollen und nicht den Fiesenkommend haben. Und da, glaube ich, ist einfach eine klare Frage. Ich würde es nicht mit Karl Schmitt, Freund-Fan-Testimmung sagen, aber. Da kommt das schon her, Litz. Ja, voll, wenn es für diese Zeit mit sich stand, Herr Mugga drauf hat, war so, da muss halt die Rentschirme selber klar haben und von man hingehört. Ja, ich finde zu dem Punkt auch noch interessant, also genau bei den Grünen gibt es aktuell also den Versuch der Neuorientierung hier in Deutschland und zum Beispiel in dieser Frage der Migration. Gibt es ja jetzt vor nicht so langer Zeit auch nochmal auch einen Statement auch wieder von Zw. D.h. der Spanachack, der hat jetzt hier einfach ein bisschen herausgehobene Stellung einfach als Parteivorsitzender, wo er auch diese Stadtbildaussage von mir hat, noch mal aufgegriffen hat. Und man versucht, da dann auf die Sachen, ja, man könne ja schon verstehen und so weiter. Also obwohl er einerseits jetzt versucht, die Grünen wieder stärker nach links zu schüren, gibt es in dieser Migrationsfrage immer noch diese Zuckungen nach rechts, wo man dann doch irgendwie denkt, ja, aber die Mehrheit findet doch und so weiter. Und dabei wird halt nicht gesehen, dass man dabei auch diese Mehrheiten immer weiter befeuert und das einfach ein Fass ohne Boden ist und ganz viele Leute eben sich politisch auch relativ heimatlos fühlen dadurch, die vorher eben ganz klar ihr politisches Zuhause hatten bei den Grünen. Ja, das ist ja auch für die Leute wiederum aber den Diskurs verschiebt. Also dass sich die Leute dann selber immer, wenn die sogar sehen, sogar die Grünen schwenken jetzt darauf ein, dann fühlen sich Leute, die es anders sehen, ja, immer mehr nach Randposition und da hat man ja auch als Parteien Verantwortung nicht nur einfach mit dem Diskurs mitzugehen, sondern irgendwie den auch zu prägen. Ja, auf jeden Fall. Ich musste auch nochmal dran denken. Also die britischen Grünen sind ja jetzt einfach auch eine Oppositionsparteile durch und durch in ihrer ganzen Geschichte immer auch in ihrem Selbstverständnis ganz klar eine Oppositionsparteile gewesen. Die deutschen Grünen wechseln irgendwie viel mehr hin und zurück zwischen Regierungsverantwortung und Opposition. Auf Bundesebene waren sie lange Oppositionen, bevor sie wieder in die Ampel gegangen sind. Aber insgesamt gibt es da halt viel mehr so ein hin und her und jetzt gerade kommen sie einen ganz frisch erst aus der Regierung und ich finde das ist auch so ein bisschen, da muss man da auch einen vielleicht einen Stück weit nochmal, ja, was vielleicht fair sein, dass das schwieriger ist als Position, als wenn es diese Regierungsphase nicht gegeben hätte. Also auch gerade bei der Migrationssache, dann auf nochmal zurückzukommen. Ich habe ja auch mal bei den Grünen gearbeitet und da waren in Bayern Landtagswahlen, wo gerade ein Hatsch zu dieses Hass und Hatsen so aufkam in Deutschland und da haben die Grünen damals noch unter Robert Habeck sich eben ganz klar so als Gegenpol positioniert. Das hat auch gut funktioniert. Schwierig wurde es dann halt ab dem Punkt, wo sie irgendwie in dieser Koalition mit der FDP und der SPD gefesselt waren an Koalitionspartner, die eben sie da nicht gelassen haben. Das ist irgendwie mich faktes komplett ab einerseits, aber ich finde das muss man schon auch einmal nochmal zumindest erklären, wo das herkommt. Das stimmt auf jeden Fall und natürlich gleichzeitig auch das System in Deutschland, indem sie ja nicht nur in der Bundesregierung jetzt waren, sondern kontinuierlich, denn in den letzten Jahren in superfrien Landesregierungen und da natürlich Landspolitik konkret mitgetragen haben oder gestaltet haben, oft auch als kleiner Koalitionspartner oder Partnerin, das ja immer eine schwierige Situation ist, wenn man einfach viel mehr mit tragen muss, was man selber nicht gut finde oder vertritt. Da aber nochmal, vielleicht nochmal die Möglichkeit, einmal im Bogen zu schlagen, zu dem, was Elterma auch gesagt hat, zu Erlichkeit in der Kommunikation und ich glaube da hat wir auch nach früheren Folge schon mal drüber gesprochen, dass es da halt einfach dann trotzdem wichtig ist, authentisch und ehrlich zu sagen, wofür man weiterhin steht und was man 10-000-Knochen mitträgt und was man wirklich gut findet, weil das einfach den Wähler in gegenüber total viel Klarheit schafft und was ich da aber nochmal herausziehungswert finde, was Elterma auch gesagt hat, finde ich auch noch ein bisschen die Migrationsdebatte spielt, man sollte lieber die Sachen so benennen und sagen, wie man sie findet und nicht aus dem Schielen auf Mehrheiten Sachen anders sagen oder wenn man sich nicht traut, Sachen so direkt zu sagen, wie man sie halt empfindet und so, weil das einfach bei den Wähler in nur Auslös das sich verarscht fühlen. Ja, das finde ich auch, also das war ja ganz am Anfang vom Gespräch, hat Elterma ja schon einmal gesagt, in Bezug auf diese Frage, was war eigentlich so die politischen Grundsätze der 90er Jahre, die dann vielleicht auch noch ein bisschen ins Anfang sich sehr hundertrüber geschwappt sind, also dieses Jahr innerhalb von den Grünen sind die Leute eigentlich ganz schön links und wollen auch gerne eigentlich vielleicht sogar Sachen vergesellschaften und haben aber das Gefühl, sie können das nicht sagen, sie müssen immer in der Öffentlichkeit irgendwie anders agieren und sind die Grünen einfach so, also ich kenne wirklich viele Leute, die Mitglieder sind in der Grünenpartei oder auch da Emter und Mandate irgendwie mal gehabt haben und ich weiß bei denen, dass das gut, das sind linke, aber die haben diese Lehre nie wirklich abgelieht, die haben immer noch das Gefühl, sie müssten da irgendwie so rumwurst sind und so tun, als wären sie nicht so links und so weiter und das kann die Rechte dann halt total gut spielen, wenn sie dann sagt, ja, es ist doch nur ein projianisches Fertz, von außen tun sie bürgerlich, aber von innen da sind die Kommis drin, so ungefähr, sagt ja auf den gerne, das finde ich einfach unter dieser Frage oder unter dieser Überschrift von Ehrlichkeit noch mal einfach einen interessanten Punkt, ob es vielleicht einfach mittlerweile die beste Strategie ist, zu sagen, was man will und sich vielleicht dafür dann auch zerprügeln zu lassen, aber allen Leuten, die das eigentlich auch so denken und ich glaube mittlerweile wer glaubt eigentlich noch an dieses kapitalistische Scheißsystem, die Leute hören dich. Ja und im Zweifelsfall ist es auch, glaube ich, den Leuten lieber zu wissen, du glaubst dann was, du willst was, was sie für einfach ein bisschen ungeändert ist, zu schalten, als was sie glauben, du erzählst ihnen halt einfach irgendwas und sie können sich ja auch aber gar nicht verlassen oder wissen nicht woran sie sind. Das fand ich ja dann mal interessanterplätzen, das nochmal was gehört über Mamdani-Vela in, wo es auch darum ging, dass er bestimmt ja ganz viel nicht umsetzen kann, was er gefordert hat und so und ganz viele von den Vela in wussten, dass sie eben eine Warte teilklar, sie wählen die Meinten, der wahrscheinlich viel nicht umsetzen können, wird von dem was er versprochen oder hat oder von dem was er als Programm hatte und gesagt, sie wollen trotzdem lieber jemanden, der für die richtigen Sachen steht und dann vielleicht manche Sachen nicht umsetzen kann, aber es versucht und wirklich für sie einsteht, als halt jemanden, der sich schon so ein System eingerichtet hat, dass er sie halt gar nicht mehr sieht. Ich glaube auch, oft ist das Publikum viel schlauer als immer unterstellt wird. Ja, voll. Ja, ein letzten Punkt, den ich irgendwie noch total interessant fand, war als auch die Organisationsweise der Grünen in Großbritannien gesprochen haben und wo es tiefstaste starke macht, dass es so eine Member-led-Führungskultur gibt. Also das eigentlich sehr sprecher der Partei nicht so eine strategische entscheidende Position unbedingt hat. Also der ist natürlich total wichtig, sagt Rolandzki, aber dass die wichtigen Entscheidungen in der Partei von Mitgliedern getroffen werden und dass es sehr demokratische aufgebaut ist. Das fand es total interessant, wenn mich das irgendwie nochmal erinnert hat, auch daran, wie sozial Bewegungen wir auf die aufgebaut sind. Nämlich das, da auch so ist, dass die strategischen Entscheidungen oft von Leuten getroffen werden die einfach schon entweder lange dabei sind. oder gerade viel Zeit reinstecken und einfach sehr stark in der Bewegung verankert sind oder dann halt in der Partei verankert sind. Und es dann hat Sprecher in Gürt die, dass, im Grunde, die Beschlüsse der Partei oder der Bewegung nach außen kommunizieren. Und Personen sind die gute Erzählung schaffen können. Und das fand ich insofern ziemlich interessant, dass es, glaube ich, total viel macht mit diesen Sprecher in Positionen. Weil das den Leuten dann, glaube ich, oft, die diese Positionen inne haben, oft stärker noch klar ist, wie abhängig sie auf in der Partei sind. Also wie sehr sie vielleicht auch schätzen, was andere Leute da auch für Arbeit reinstecken. Und dass man halt nicht so sehr dieses "Ich führe von oben runter" Phänomen hat, wie man es finde ich schon bei Habeck. Der ist ja schon Sprecher geworden mit so einem total steigen Anspruch auch die Partei umzugestalten. Oder Jörg Schgefischer damals auch, also ist jetzt schon lange her. Aber ja, aus von oben immer wieder ganz starke Richtung, das Impulse reingegeben hat und auch die Partei total stark verändert hat. Und das sind aber immer wieder Prozesse natürlich, wo dann, wenn eine Person ihre Meinung so stark macht, auch wieder andere gehen. Weil sie vielleicht dann nicht mitgehen können. Natürlich auch neue Leute dazukommen. Aber das fand ich irgendwie einfach mal interessant, weil ich glaube, es macht einfach viel mit der Kultur, in der Partei und viel mehr mit so einem Form von vielleicht auch mit den Herzgefühlmannen teil. Weil die People's Movement oder People's Bewegung und ich finde das ist was, was man in den aktuell erfolgreichen Projekten auch total sieht von den, dass das irgendwie rein der Volksmodell ist. Also sowohl Organized Green, die organisieren gerade viele Leute, Mamdani, riesige Organisationskampagne, auch die Linken in Deutschland haben gewonnen, weil sie so viele Leute organisiert haben. Und ich glaube, um das zu dem Modell gehört, eine andere Verständnis von Sprecher, den Schafft auch für die Partei und das fand ich irgendwie da noch mal interessant einfach zu sehen. Ja, ich glaube da würde ich nur so halt mitgehen. Ich würde sagen, diese Form von Führung ist halt eine, die sehr erfolgreich in der Oppositionszeit ist. Da profitiert mein total auch von so einer gewissen Bewegungsförmigkeit und die zentralen Strukturen und so weiter, über einzelne Leute aktiv, jeder kann ein bisschen für sich sprechen. Aber ab dem Zeitpunkt, wo es um Regierung geht, würde ich schon sagen, dass dann Strategiefähigkeit auch davon profitiert, stärker zu konzentrieren. Und das da zum Beispiel, ich habe mal einen so eine Doku gesehen über die Grünen von Spiegel, Online oder so, von diesen Markus Fädenkirchen, den wahrscheinlich einige Hörer in den auch kennen. Und da hat man gesehen, dass halt so innerhalb der Grünen Parteien dieser Regierungszeit in der Ampel, die gehen mit sechs Leuten in die Besprechung rein. Ist es völlig unklar, wer hat welche Rolle, wer hat welche Befugnis zu entscheiden, zum Teil sogar unklar, wer überhaupt moderiert. Und das da halt, das nicht funktioniert, ist aus meiner Sicht irgendwie klar. Also da braucht es, glaube ich, dann viel stärker eine Konzentration und dann eher, ich glaube ich, charismatische Führung, Persönlichkeiten, die es eben auch immer wieder schaffen, obwohl sie so sehr an der Spitze stehen, gezielt sich Feedback rein zu holen, nicht crazy gehen. Weil sie denken, sie sind einfach der Shit. Und so, also ich glaube, das ist dann eher so die Kompetenz, die es braucht. Also für mich ist so Bewegungs- und Schirmigkeit in Oppositionszeiten auf jeden Fall, aber also bei den Regierungszeiten geht, weiß ich nicht so richtig, ob das die richtige Organisationsform ist. Jetzt habe ich aber tatsächlich mal eine Kontroverse in der Nachversprechung, das ich da selten. Also ich verstehe das, ich würde auch in einer Halbner Koalition damit gehen, dass das schwierig ist, wenn die anderen schnell Entscheidungsfähig ist. Das sind, wenn es selber nicht ist, aber es führt halt auch, also die Konzentration auf eine Person führt halt auch zu krassen Fehlentscheidung. Also wie zum Beispiel dieser Haber-Gemove, dann da auf die CDU noch mal zuzugehen am Ende. Das war einfach eine strategische Krassophilie-Entscheidung. Die konnte aber halt einfach so treffen, weil es einfach nicht noch die Rückstimmung gab, mit dem wie eigentlich der Rest der Partei das gerade sieht. Ich würde sagen, das war einfach eine falsche Entscheidung. Ja, aber die wurde halt von "Ein Sohn". Es hätte auch eine richtige Entscheidung sein können. Ja, aber ich würde sagen, sie war auch so falsch, weil die Verbindung zu Basis gefilmt hat. Ich glaube, da mehr Bodenhaftung ist, gerade ich gar nicht selber zum gutes Wort. Aber wenn da so ziemlich verbindung besser gewesen wäre, hätte man vielleicht auch so nicht getroffen. Weil es hier ist skeptisch. Ja, ich frag mich halt so ein bisschen. Also ich glaube schon, das Parteipolitik auch immer wieder davon lebt, dass man Entscheidungen trifft, die nicht nur Beifall bringen. Und ich finde, diese Oppositionsförmigkeit und diese Bewegungsförmigkeit in Oppositionszeiten, die ist halt sehr stark darauf abgestellt, dass man dann immer einfach das macht, was alle wollen. Und ich finde auch, wenn Habeck Fischer und auch so jemand wie Gerhard Schröder, Superkontroverse Leute sind, an den ich auf jeden Fall auch viel Kritik selber auch habe, würde ich schon sagen, dass es bei allen auch ein Stück weit verdienst war oder man könnte sogar Angela Merkel noch mit dazu zählen. Dass es von allen auch ein Stück weit verdienst war, zum Teil in den Spannungsverhältnis zu gehen von ihrem eigenen politischen Lager. Also was ist da in der Verdienst? Das ist mehrhalten bringen. Ja, ich bin wieder nicht so sicher. Ich bin vor allem nicht so sicher, was wirklich die Handlungsfähigkeit dann angeht. Angesichts muss jetzt aber nochmal einschränken, sagen, dass man aktuellen Systemen in dem ganz vielen nicht mehr geht. Also in dem Politik ja ganz oft an dem Punkt kommt, dass man Sachen gar nicht umsetzen kann, weil die entweder rechtlich nicht gehen oder bei anderen Pläern nicht mit spielen oder weil es irgendwo anders sperrt mehr halten wird. Und wo man eigentlich immer stärker darauf angewiesen ist, dass man Parteipolitik hat, die Sachen versucht und dann eine Organisierung dahinter, die im Zweifelsfall massen klagen macht, Leute überzeugt. Ich denke jetzt gerade an die Socialation in Berlin mit Deutsche Wohnen und Co. Und der Mieter in Organisierung, die gleichzeitig auch Menschen organisiert, um andere politische Mittel zu gehen und sind für das Spannungsverhältnis herzustellen zwischen Parteipolitik und Gesellschaftspolitik. Und ich glaube da brauchen wir auch immer diese charismatischen Person und Sackpulenz, die die Grünen in UK würden gerade auch nicht so darstellen, wenn die nicht hätten. Das ist glaube ich die total außer Frage. Aber ich glaube die Frage, die wir auch schon mal in der Podcast 3 vor der Wahl 2020 gar nicht besprochen haben, ist halt wirklich immer die Rückhaftung. Dieser Menschen in der Herausforderung und Position an die Basis oder Bewegung. Ich glaube wo ich auf jeden Fall voll mitgehen kann jetzt bei dem was du gesagt hast, ist dass man auch in Regierungszeiten, nur Formen von Gesellschaftspolitischer Strategie braucht, die dann eben eher auf diese schwahmen Intelligenz einer Partei setzen kann. Und dass das auch zum Teil total das ist, was den Grünen gefehlt hat in der letzten Regierungzeit. Also sie dachten in der Opposition machen sehr schön Stimmung in der Gesellschaft und dann kommen wir in die Regierung und dann machen wir Gesetze. Und spätestens bei dieser Heizungs-Debarkeit hat sich gezeigt, weil sie so wenigstig gekümmert haben, um eine Gesellschaftstrategie zu diesen Themen, hatten sie dann auch keinen Rückheit und hatten auch niemanden mehr, der ihnen irgendwie zur Seite gesprungen ist. Also kurz vorher haben sie praktisch die Klimab Bewegung den Mittelfinger gezeigt und gesagt, wir begann jetzt Lützerrat ab. Und dann waren sie überrascht, dass wenn dann die Leute Sturmlaufen gegen den Heizungshammer oder auch die Bauernproteste irgendwie das Land bleiben legen und da manentlich auf Robert Tabeck warten, dann ist halt niemand mehr da, der da irgendwie was macht. Ja, voll. Okay, nämlich jetzt diese Hamonenschehnote und wir werden den Podcast, das hat viel Spaß gemacht, ich habe euch auch gefallen und dass ihr uns geboten bleibt, dass es wieder heißt. Was tun? Das war der, was tun Podcast. Konzept und Redaktion, Ingenjärman und Walenten Isen, Schnitt, Julian Schlumberger und die Musik kommt von Richard Wotermann. [Musik] [Musik]