After Autumn Conference’s decision to agree the Holistic Review proposals and put them to a ballot of the full membership of the party, we’ve amended the report to take on board the changes agreed at Conference. These included keeping Disciplinary Committee and Disputes Resolution as they are and enabling members to stand as job shares for the governing bodies. Thanks to everyone at conference who joined in this discussions to make the report in line with what members want to see.

This is the amended version of the report which all members are voting on whether they agree (or not) as the direction to go for changing our organisational structure.


And this is the organisational structure diagram, as updated by the changes at Conference.

Categories: Updates


June Tranmer · August 12, 2018 at 8:29 am

Thank you for all your hard work!

David Taylor · August 12, 2018 at 3:16 pm

A council of 45 is unworkable; far too large and expensive. impossible for the group to usefully hear the insights of 45 differenty people.
Haviing the leader chair the executive destroys a key principle of the GP consititution, the separation of powers. The leader already has significant power as the principal face/speaker of the party. Why add yet more power to one person (or co-leaders) by haviing their chair GPEX as well? The two skills are quite different.

    Martina Weitsch · August 12, 2018 at 3:27 pm

    Thanks for your comment, David. It is true that 45 is a large number but this is the important body taking forward work for the GPEW between conferences. It is critical that this is broadly based and balance to be reflective/representative of the party as a whole. It will require detailed preparation of meetings and skilled chairing but I have no doubt that the GPEW is up for that.
    With regard to your other point (Leader to chair the Political Executive), I would like to say that it is probably a misunderstanding of our report to equate GPEX in our current structures and the Political Executive. Given that this Political Executive is outward facing and deciding on political positions it makes sense for the Leader to chair it. That doesn’t give the leader more power but more investment in the decisions.

    Loppy Oubridge · August 24, 2018 at 6:57 pm

    I agree with David that 45 is too many for meaningful discussion & decision making. I also think Green Seniors should be represented. However I don’t think PEX is a replacement for GPEX I think its basically the political committee for elected people like our MEPs & MPs & Ams to meet & discuss & to feed into Council what campaigns etcetera would be useful for them & the party.

Kirsten de Keyser · August 13, 2018 at 9:59 am

A list of contents would be helpful

    Martina Weitsch · August 17, 2018 at 9:34 am

    I don’t disagree – hindsight is 20/20 vision!

      Kirsten de Keyser · August 19, 2018 at 5:47 pm

      I guess it shouldn’t take a lot to at least add a list of the main chapter headings with page numbers. It’s otherwise quite cumbersome to navigate a 28 page document when accessing it on the screen.

Philip King · August 15, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Small admin suggestion: add a version number to the filename instead of “Final”, ie. HolisticReview_Report_v01.pdf.

Rachel lowe · August 19, 2018 at 9:37 pm

When we vote are we voting as he whole thing??

Can it not be broken into sections? That way some changes may be able to be made sooner than others. The things that still need ironing out can be at a later date?

Some of it I totally agree with and some of it I absolutely do not.

    Julia Chanteray · August 20, 2018 at 11:41 am

    Hi Rachel
    It looks like your thoughts could be presented as an amendment to our report/motion. In order to make an amendment, you will need to post draft amendments to the Amendments forum on the Members’ Website by the 23rd of August 2018. This will allow us and/or others to help you with your draft. Then, when you have the final wording, you and three other members (a total of four members) will need to e-mail the amendment to SOC (on by the 30th of August 2018 for it to be accepted. Thank you for your input and good luck, and do let us know if you’re thinking of making a friendly amendment, ie, one which agrees with some points, but wants to change some of the others.

      rachel · August 20, 2018 at 11:56 am

      How do you get to the forums? I’ve never been on them before and the websites not very user inititiative

Malcolm Brown · August 20, 2018 at 10:55 am

I am most concerned about the loss of the international committee. Being part of a world wide green movement is what sustains me. A dedicated committee which builds expertise , experience and relationships in this area I feel is essential. The only way we can save our planet is through international work. Other committees deal with business around Green Party of England and Wales and I understand the rational behind your proposals on this.

    Julia Chanteray · August 20, 2018 at 11:23 am

    Hi Malcolm – thanks for your comment. We’ve had a few comments on the International Committee, and have discussed this quite a bit in the team this week. We’re going to make an amendment to the report that there should be a specific Task and Finish group set up to work out how to continue the work of the International Committee, get more people involved in this important work, and perhaps bring this more centrally into the work of the party. This could be similar to the recommendations for the specific Equalities and Diversity Task and Finish group.

      John Street · August 21, 2018 at 7:27 am

      Can you give us an indication of the cost of this exercise – the biggest change in the governance of the Green party for nearly 30 years ?? e.g. What’s the likely cost of the transition from where we are now to where we probably will be if your report is accepted, and what are the elements of that cost ?? Also, what would you estimate as the ongoing running costs of the new system compared to the present GPEX/GPRC system plus the cost of transferring the work done by the current elected committees to staff members – presumably additional staff members. I appreciate that this last is not mentioned in your report (at least I don’t recall seeing it) but I have been told by a member of the Commission that that’s the intention – apologies if I have misunderstood something somewhere along the line.

      John Street · August 21, 2018 at 8:11 am

      What’s the estimated cost of implementing your proposals ?? Can you break it down into the transition period and then the ongoing running costs of the new system and compare the latter with the cost of running the current system ??

Evelyn Leslie · August 21, 2018 at 7:05 am

I echo previous concerns about the removal of the international committee. I am aware of the range and quality of the work it accomplishes and feel that this work could get lost amongst the priorities of the new Council. A team dedicated to international work is essential and very much reflects the Green Party’s outward looking philosophy. As the UK appears to be isolating itself and becoming marginalised on the world stage, it is even more important that the Green Party supports and values its international work.

Chit Chong · August 22, 2018 at 1:02 am

I am concerned that future generations will suffer from our unwillingness to address climate change and that the one party which says it cares for the future does not try to represent their interests.

I would like to propose the amendment below
If you think it will work please support it as I need 4 co proposers.

Amendment to Holistic Review report.

Inline with our philosophical basis PB305. Conference
recognises that the rights of future generations must
be “recognised and championed” by the Green Party. In
order to do this, the Holistic Review Report is to be
amended to include representation
for future generations in the Council in equal numbers to other under
represented groups. However in recognition of the large size of the proposed Council. The proposed composition shall be amended to read:

“18 representatives from the regions of England (2 from each) and 2 representatives from the nation of Wales (as currently on the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC))

Three representatives of the Young Greens

Three representatives from formally constituted Affiliated Groups within the GPEW who represent marginalised communities, including the current liberation groups

Three representatives for future generations.

Five representatives of elected Councillors

and 10 directly elected members

Representatives for Future Generations will be
empowered to speak on behalf people living in the future who
have not yet been born and to challenge policy proposals so
that the better meet their needs. They will be required to demonstrate that they have championed the rights of people living in the future and be directly elected on this basis by members of the Green Party in addition to the ten directly elected members.”

Peter Barnett · August 23, 2018 at 9:42 pm

A key concern about the original Governance Review Working Group’s plans for a new governance system related to proposals for a new council to replace GPRRC, where the number of regional/Welsh reps would be reduced from 20 to 10, to be replaced by reps from six Liberation groups, 5 from the general membership plus additional ‘overhang’ positions to be used, if needed, to correct gender imbalances.

The arguments for and against the proposals were extensively aired on my Greens for Good Government Facebook page and elsewhere. A principal concern was the democratic deficit that resulted from the loss of one-member-one-vote, as reps from other bodies were introduced, and that the new council would be too large, divisive, unbalanced and unstable.

The Holistic Commission’s proposal for a new council has gone down a very similar path. Whilst maintaining all the regional reps from the existing GPRC, it then goes on to include Liberation Gps, FIVE Young Greens), a pile of directly elected members etc.
i.e, An even larger council than ever, which may be even more unlikely to deliver.

I’m therefore going to submit an amendment proposing that the new council remains essential similar to the existing GPRC, but to include a member from the AGC, Political Committee and PEX. They would select their Council member from within.
This will offer a Council of a reasonable size and save Party members from a large and complex series of internal elections.

I think it’s important that members are given the opportunity to discuss this approach as it was strongly supported last time and pivotal in both defeating the Governance Review Working Group’s proposals, and getting the motion passed to create the Holistic Governance Review initiative.

Phil Simpson · August 29, 2018 at 4:40 pm

Thank you for all your hard work. It is remarkable the emphasis given throughout your work to respect and treasuring each other within the GPEW, hurray. I, personally, have reservations about the size and relationships of the bodies you suggest – possibly it should be possible to reduce these in the fullness of time as experience is gathered.
Finally with nearly 40 years membership of GPEW can I commend this to others both in content and the the timely professional way in which it has been done.

Our Report to Conference - Green Party Holistic Review · August 12, 2018 at 2:54 pm

[…] page has been superseded. Please refer to the revised report […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.