I asked Chat GPT to rate different parties around the world on morality and pragmatism.
The Green Party in the UK they gave 4* out of 5 for morality and only 2* for pragmatism.
The Norwegian socialist left they gave 5* for both morality and pragmatism!
I then asked for an explanation of why this difference was interpreted. This was Chat GPT’s answer:
Why UK Greens ≈ 4★ morality
(High ⇒ strong moral intention, clear values; slight deduction due to execution context)
1. Their moral intentions are extremely strong
- ecological justice
- climate responsibility
- social equality
- basic income
- anti-poverty
- anti-discrimination
These values are consistent and deeply principled.
2. Their messaging is ethically coherent
They emphasise protecting vulnerable people, future generations, and the planet.
3. Why not 5★?
Not because their intentions are less moral — but because “morality” in politics also includes moral coherence in implementation.
A few issues reduce that:
- Some policies lack full practical detail, which can make the “moral outcomes” uncertain in execution.
- Internal factions sometimes dilute the ability to speak in one unified ethical voice.
- Their moral clarity doesn’t always translate into moral feasibility (i.e., the confidence that their ethical goals would actually be realised in practice).
So the moral intention is 5★, but moral coherence and applied ethics is slightly less ⇒ average ≈ 4★.
Why UK Greens ≈ 2★ pragmatism
This rating reflects structural and strategic constraints, NOT a judgment of quality or sincerity.
1. They operate in a system that punishes small parties (FPTP)
Under first-past-the-post, they struggle to convert national vote share into seats.
This severely limits their ability to execute policies, build governing experience, or show proof of deliverability.
2. Limited institutional experience at national level
- Few MPs
- Few opportunities to run major ministries
- Less exposure to practical administration of large-scale budgets
This isn’t their fault — it’s a structural barrier.
3. Policy presentation sometimes lacks staged implementation
Policies are ambitious, visionary, and morally strong — but often not presented with:
- phased rollout
- costed sequencing
- administrative timelines
This weakens perceived pragmatism.
4. Coalition culture not yet mature
They have limited practice negotiating in national coalitions (because they are rarely in a position to).
This means less demonstration of compromise-building, deal-making, or institutional governance.
Hence pragmatism rating ≈ 2★ — reflecting structural disadvantages + limited governing runway ≠ unrealistic intentions.
Why Norway’s Socialist Left ≈ 5★ morality
(Strong moral intention + coherent, consistent, institutionally credible ethics)
1. Their ethical framework is morally rich AND internally coherent
- anti-poverty
- strong welfare state
- climate justice
- equality
- workers’ rights
- feminism
- indigenous rights
They deliver values through realistic policymaking.
2. Ethical integrity + policy consistency
Their moral worldview remains consistent across decades, leaders, and governing coalitions.
3. Their governing record reinforces moral credibility
They have participated in governments where they implemented:
- welfare expansions
- climate measures
- worker protections
Their moral principles have survived contact with power, which is rare.
Hence 5★ morality: not just intention, but coherent ethical practice and delivery.
Why Norway’s Socialist Left ≈ 5★ pragmatism
This is where SV excels due to context + culture.
1. They have governed
They have held ministerial roles, shaped budgets, and negotiated major reforms.
This proves capability, not just aspiration.
2. Norway uses proportional representation
SV gains a fair number of seats relative to vote share.
This allows:
- coalition participation
- influence on policy
- legislative negotiation
3. Strong ties to unions and labour institutions
They have structural legitimacy among working-class voters, not just urban progressives.
4. High trust + high state capacity
Norway’s political culture is:
- consensus-oriented
- cooperative
- low corruption
- technically strong
This environment rewards pragmatism and policy detail.
5. They specialise in phased, technically grounded policies
Climate, welfare, and taxation reforms come with:
- costings
- sequencing
- administrative clarity
They speak as administrators, not activists.
Hence pragmatism ≈ 5★.
Final contrast in one sentence
- UK Greens are morally principled but structurally constrained, making their morality outpace their deliverability.
- Norway’s Socialist Left combines principled ethics with decades of coalition governance, policy craftsmanship, and institutional trust.
I also asked what the UK Green Party could learn from the Norwegian Socialist Left Party and this was Chat GPT’s response:
1. Turn bold goals into phased, deliverable policy pathways
What SV does well:
SV takes large ideals (climate justice, welfare expansion) and breaks them into administratively realistic stages, each with costings, timelines, and implementation plans.
What Greens could adopt:
- Present policies with clear sequencing: Stage 1 → Stage 2 → Stage 3
- Show budget-neutral or phased spending
- Publish costed impact assessments
This makes ambitious climate and social policies look governable, not just visionary.
2. Embed climate and social justice within a labour/economic narrative
What SV does well:
SV links climate action to job creation, skills, and industrial policy. This wins credibility with workers.
What Greens could adopt:
- Tie every climate policy to jobs, apprenticeships, and wages
- Partner with unions to co-write green industrial strategies
- Develop sector-specific transition plans (ports, steel, retrofit workforce)
This shifts Greens’ image from “environmental idealists” to economic problem-solvers.
3. Strengthen pragmatic coalition culture
What SV does well:
SV is coalition-native. It negotiates, compromises, and shows voters it can work with other parties to deliver.
What Greens could adopt:
- Publicly embrace constructive cooperation with Labour and Lib Dems
- Create “shared policy frameworks” with other progressive actors
- Offer targeted amendments rather than maximal demands
This builds governing credibility in a political system where Greens must often influence rather than lead.
4. Promote administrative competence as part of identity
What SV does well:
SV communicates like administrators: details, costings, bureaucratic realism, timelines.
What Greens could adopt:
- Highlight local Green-run council successes
- Emphasise delivery metrics (housing units, cycle lanes, emissions reductions)
- Use more technocratic language alongside moral framing (“implementation”, “rollout”, “costed options”)
This counterbalances perceptions that Greens are more moral than managerial.
5. Develop stable institutional partnerships
What SV does well:
SV collaborates with unions, environmental NGOs, research institutes, and social partners — building policy that is rooted in institutions, not just ideals.
What Greens could adopt:
- Formal collaboration with universities, think tanks, and labour groups
- Joint reports with civic organisations
- Policy committees composed of economists, engineers, public health experts
This increases trust and gravitas, signalling “we are ready to govern.”
6. Communicate like future ministers, not just moral advocates
What SV does well:
SV’s tone is confident, methodical, grounded — projecting governing ability.
What Greens could adopt:
- Avoid absolutist rhetorical framing
- Emphasise “this is doable”, “here’s the plan”, “here’s the mechanism”
- Use calm, measured communication in debates
This appeals to sceptical voters who worry Greens are “too idealistic.”
7. Build regionalised climate/economic narratives
What SV does well:
SV adapts its climate messaging to different regions — urban, rural, industrial.
What Greens could adopt:
- Distinct green visions for:
- The North (jobs + transition)
- Midlands (industry + clean manufacturing)
- Rural areas (farming + biodiversity)
- Coastal communities (flood resilience)
This overcomes the stereotype that Greens are only an “urban/progressive” party.
8. Strengthen internal cohesion
What SV does well:
SV has strong ideological discipline and cohesion between factions.
What Greens could adopt:
- Sharper communication discipline
- A unified “Top 5” policy priorities
- Internal processes for resolving factional disputes
This ensures a single clear voice, not fragmented messaging.
9. Normalise pragmatism as part of the ethical stance
What SV does well:
Pragmatism is presented as part of moral responsibility — not as compromise but as ethical delivery.
What Greens could adopt:
- Reframe incremental wins as moral outcomes
- Emphasise: “Small steps save lives and cut emissions now.”
- Integrate feasibility into the moral narrative
This aligns moral clarity with practical realism.
Summary — What Greens Could Learn
| Area | What SV Does | How Greens Could Adapt |
|---|---|---|
| Policy design | Phased, costed | Stepwise, budgeted |
| Economic framing | Jobs + climate integrated | Green jobs strategy |
| Coalitions | Core governing skill | Cooperative posture |
| Messaging | Calm, administrative | Competence-focused |
| Labour ties | Deep union roots | Build union partnerships |
| Regional strategy | Tailored narratives | Regional green plans |
| Internal cohesion | Strong discipline | Unified priorities |
| Moral + pragmatic balance | Seamless | Integrate feasibility into ethics |