GREEN PARTY SHOULD ARGUE 2nd VOTE FOR KEN
Let us be absolutely clear. Boris Johnson can win mayor of London, and that is a disaster we must not let happen.
With fewer than four months to go before the mayoral election, the YouGov/ITV London Tonight poll put Johnson just one point behind Ken Livingstone, on 44%. The poll excluded Londoners who said they had not yet made up their minds or would not vote.
Let us just take one issue: the environment
Ken Livingstone was recently voted the politician in Britain who has “shown the greatest leadership in advancing sustainable development in 2007″. The poll was conducted by Forum for the Future among Britain’s leading environmental experts.
In contrast, Ken’s Tory opponent. Boris Johnson opposed the Kyoto Treaty, derided renewable forms of energy, enthusiastically backed nuclear power, and opposes plans to charge gas guzzlers £25 for driving into central London.
Yet the Green Party is not calling for second preference votes to go to Ken.
Given the nature of the Green Party, and their strategic orientation, no-one expects Sian Berry to withdraw. She is a very capable candidate, and will be raising issue of climate change and social justice, and reaching voters who might not otherwise vote.
But this election will be decided on second preferences. It is vital that the Green Party takes seriously the threat of Boris Johnson gaining the national platform and authority of being mayor of London, and using that to turn back the tide of public opinion on climate change. The Green party needs to make a strong and clear recommendation to its voters: second preference to Ken.
Andy
You are quite right. Just because KL has some dodgy politics and is prone to political manoevring does not mean we should let Boris in to maintain our political purity. KL is no different from any other social democratic leader who sections of the working class and oppressed look to. Just because socialists have decided that Labour has had it’s day and decided to form a new left party does not mean the majority of the working class and oppressed allies have reched the same conclusion. Calling for a second vote for KL while putting demands on KL is the way to go. Right on Andy.
Comment by Raphie — 5 January, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Nothing to attract Green votes to Livingstone when he spends 11 minutes setting off £1.3 million of fireworks over the River Thames for New Year. That shows no regard for the river wildlife - birds, fishes, voles etc.
Comment by Richard — 5 January, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Very good post Andy.
Richard: is that the best you can do?
As someone who lives in London, I don’t want to see vile racist Boris Johnson as Mayor. I will support Ken. It doesn’t mean you have to accept what Ken has done and say nothing. On the contrary, you can put demands and pressure on someone like Ken.
You cannot apply the same pressure on a Tory, who will just tell you to “f*ck off”.
Ken, at least, has boosted public transport and yes, has taken a gradualist approach. But all you get from Boris is a bah humbug attitude. He has increased the number of people who can use public transport for free. Will Boris continue that? No. Boris will rip away all the gains put into place by Ken. He will be cutting things left, right and centre.
It is going to be Boris v Ken. And do the Left seriously want the gormless nasty Boris Johnson running the show?
It means you can support Ken but at the same time be vocally critical.
Comment by Louise — 5 January, 2008 @ 11:44 am
That is a good point Louise.
It is not only a question of Ken being the more progressive option (by far!) than Boris, over questions of race, the environment, housing, etc.
But Livingstone is also more susceptible to influence.
Comment by Andy — 5 January, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Andy,
For what it is worth, I agree with you entirely.
Matt
Comment by Matt S — 5 January, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
To follow up Matt’s point, most people I know in the London Federation of Green Parties are in favour of giving Ken a second preference. It was discussed in a preliminary way at our AGM and there was general support for it, and it will be put to formal vote of the members soon.
I imagine that we will be giving Ken a second preference, and can assure you we have thought of all the reasons mentioned in your post.
Comment by Aled Dilwyn Fisher — 5 January, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Excellent news Aled.
Comment by Andy — 5 January, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Sian Berry shouldn’t decide her stance on this too early or give it away too easily. The Greens should let the key issues and difference in stances develop and then, at a critical juncture, trade the call for second preferences for something worth having.
Comment by Strategist — 5 January, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
If Ken had the courage of his convictions Ken he’d have the election in the bag by now, and subsequents ones too for that matter. Londoners seem to like him, would like a transport sytem that works effectively (and would be willing for a radical break with PFI), are pretty environmentally aware, want more housing built, etc, etc. These are things that are moderately leftwing and Londoners are for. If he’d gone down this line, Boris wouldn’t be an issue.
It’s because Ken has been to some extent a failure that Boris could win. If Boris can avoid the scandals to which he is fantastically prone, my prediction is that Ken will be sunk by the perfect New Labour storm: slowing economy, house prices may start to tumble even in London, zany incompetence of Gordon Brown and chums, lots more New Labour scandals (party funding, etc), and so on and so forth. I think Boris will be the next Mayor of London.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 5 January, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
I was out on the knocker for Ken the first time around, before he scuttled back to Blair’s bosum. We had no illusions at the time, but he was the best option. The anti-Boris strategy is vitally important this time around as it would be catastrophic if he were to get in, and no-one should believe he couldn’t.
Sian Berry is (in my view)certainly the most likeable of the candidates and has the most honest and credible politics, although I’m aware that the Lyndsey German fanclub will predictably disagree. I agree with Louise and Andy on this, that as it’s a two horse race, Ken should be the second preference for Green voters.
Comment by Shoegazer — 5 January, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
The important part of this argument is that many Green party activists may be politically sophisticated enough to know that it is important, but will Green voters.
In his recent interview on this blog, even Derek Wall, one of the two Principal Speakers of the Greens thought Ken was in favour of hesathrow expansion, which was a myth put out by the Evening standard.
the key thing is that the Green party should actively try to ensure that Green voters are aware of the issue, and try to deliver a high 2nd perference for Livingstone. because last time round most Grren voters disn’t, and we simply cannot afford it this time round.
Comment by Andy — 5 January, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Volty
Well I have limited ambitions over the degree to which Livingstone is susceptible to pressure, and if he decides to do something he will pretty much do it.
But in a small way he is susceptible to the prevailing consensus of progressive opinion over for example issues like climate change, the war on Iraq, or venezuela, in a way that politicans totally outwith the labour movement would not be.
Louise may have a different understanding, but that is mine.
Comment by Andy — 5 January, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
You think I have a different understanding than my own one? Too cryptic for me.
Comment by Andy — 5 January, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
You’re suffering from false consciousness of your own consciousness, Andy. It’d take Marx and Godel to figure it out.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 5 January, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Andy
The Green Party can’t say Sian 1 Ken 2, as it will get them in trouble with the electoral commission. This is why Respect didn’t say Lyndsey 1 Ken 2 at the last GLA.
I’d have thought such an officionado of the election rules would know this.
Comment by JM — 5 January, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
OK, thank goodness for socialists like Andy who can big up the green vote.
For me as a rather ghettoised blogger from a capitalist background, my biggest story at the moment is the consensus on climate change and world peace. I liked the scenario Monbiot put where the PM (aka. “Brown”wash) comes on TV and solemnly declares an end to economic growth. We came close with “addicted to oil”. I’d love to be enlightened on the consensus because it seems to me that the nature of the problem requires the greatest consensus in history stretching from to chinadialogue.net to the vastLeftWingconspiracy.net.
Comment by http://sen.blog-city.com/consensus.htm — 5 January, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
It is unclear why the greens are not calling for a second preference vote for Ken. The outcome of the Mayoral election will be determined by such votes.
An inability to get such a fundamental choice right will make it much less likely that the Green Party will attract support, for example in the London Assembly election.
The case for the Green Party calling a second preference for Ken is not simply the need to defeat the real threat posed by Boris Johnson – as important as that is.
It is also because Ken has done more than virtually any other holder of major office to advance the green agenda.
This is not only recognised by his position in the poll which Andy cites but also in the fact that London is now the chair of the C40 group of world cities tackling climate change.
In addition to the congestion charge, Ken’s green record also includes:
• Development of the London Climate Change Action Plan to achieve a carbon emission reduction of 60 per cent in twenty years.
• London-wide Low Emission Zone starts operation from February 2008 to improve air quality.
• Opposing the expansion of Heathrow airport.
• Supporting the campaign against the commissioning of new nuclear power stations.
• Programme of retro-fitting public buildings to reduce their carbon emissions which is to be implemented from this year.
As the Guardian reports today http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/05/activists.ethicalliving
“Ken Livingstone, 62, has dragged the capital to the top of the major world cities’ environment league. He shocked the more timid Tony Blair and Gordon Brown when he set an ambitious 60% CO2 reduction target by 2025 - and now he is championing renewables, energy from waste, heat and power systems, and ways Londoners can adapt their homes. The capital has seen a huge increase in cycling, and from this month most of the city’s public buildings will be “retrofitted” to save energy. It’s beginning to work, he says: four years ago, more than one in three Londoners used their cars every day; now few er than one in five do. But he can do little about airports. Almost one-third of London emissions come from City airport and Heathrow, and there are plans for both to nearly double in size.”
In Kens New year message he said on the environment
“On climate change London has put forward, in the London Climate Change Action Plan, the most advanced programme for any city in the world. The congestion charge is not only a transport but an environmental policy that has had a worldwide impact with other cities such as New York now following. In 2008 London becomes a Low Emission zone. Consultation is taking place on London imposing a £25 a day charge for using the most gas guzzling cars and exempting low polluting cars from the congestion charge. London is the only major city in the world to see a shift into public transport from the car. All this is recognised internationally in London being asked to chair the C40 group of global cities fighting climate change.”
Ken has a serious policy record and plans to continue making this a central part of his mayoralty if re-elected.
Surely the Green Party should be doing everything within its power to advance green agenda in London? Regarding the Mayoral election that means calling for a second preference for Ken in order to stop Johnson.
Comment by Graham James — 6 January, 2008 @ 12:06 am
is ken calling for a 2nd preference vote for the greens? If he is i would be happy as agreen party member to support a 2nd vote for ken (for him as a socially and environmentally progressive individual of course - not the rabidly war loving big business loving anti-working class party he represents of course)
Comment by leigh — 6 January, 2008 @ 6:15 am
“This is why Respect didn’t say Lyndsey 1 Ken 2 at the last GLA.”
Lindsey used this formulation in The Guardian, and Respect activists were told to tell this to people too:
“For the sake of London, I will be voting for him on the second preference vote and I hope that Respect voters will too.”
Maybe you can’t openly call for a vote for someone else. But Respect did call for 2nd preferences to go to Ken, as it would’ve done in Lindsey’s campaign this time round - it was very, very open in Respect meetings that we would do this, and if it looked like Ken would win, Lindsey would withdraw.
Comment by tonyc — 6 January, 2008 @ 9:37 am
The reactionary wave of policies that would accompany a Boris victory would include a rejection of the progressive agenda Ken has advanced on green issues.
You only have to see what Boris has thought was acceptable to publish to understand that he has a neo-con view on the environment. (see below)
This alone should be reason enough for the Greens to call for a second preference for Ken.
1. Boris Opposed the Kyoto treaty on climate change
‘But of all the tough-guy acts that Bush has performed in his first few months, of all the pieces of exuberant Reaganism, nothing has so intoxicated the world with hate as his decision to scrumple up the Kyoto protocol and use if for putting practice in the White House…
‘Because we still need a rich, confident America; not just to provide the cash for the global military leadership that the United States has to give from the Gulf to Kosovo, but also to keep the world economy moving…. If America were to meet its Kyoto targets now, it would require a cut of 30 per cent in emissions, and how, exactly, is that supposed to work in the current economic downturn…. It would exacerbate the recession, and when Bush says no, he is doing what is right not
just for America but for the world.’ (Lend Me Your Ears p318)
2. Boris is also an evangelist for nuclear power – and opposes wind farms
‘We are responsible for just about every ground breaking scientific advance… Above all we were the nation that ushered in the dawn of the atomic age.
‘That was the subject of the first major essay I ever wrote, and I am happy to confess now, at a safe distance, that I plagiarised it entirely from a Ladybird book. It was called “Atomic Power”, I produced it at the age of nine, and in a spirit of unabashed and exuberant technological optimism I hymned the wonderful
things that followed the fission of an atom of uranium-235…
This is the nation that split the atom and yet now, my friends, how fallen, how changed we are from that position of global eminence.
‘There is now a growing agreement that for the first time in a quarter of a century we must build nuclear reactors; there can be argument about how many, but they must be a part of the solution to our increasing energy problems….
‘As I said on this page recently, I am far too terrified to dissent from the growing world creed of global warming.‘But even if it turns out that the worry has been overdone (by the way, jolly nippy today, eh?), then there still seem to be overwhelming arguments for going nuclear. Look at the size of your gas bill…
‘We need an alternative, and one that doesn’t just involve crucifying our landscape with wind farms which, even when they are in motion, would barely pull the skin off a rice pudding.‘That is why I am reverting to my nine-year-old self’s evangelism for nuclear power.’ (Have I Got Views for You p83)
Comment by Graham James — 6 January, 2008 @ 11:47 am
tonyc - I assume you mean “if it looked as if Ken was going to lose”, yeah?
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
heh who knows *what* I mean, ever.
Comment by tonyc — 6 January, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
I think we all feel like that sometimes.
As for the Livingstone 2nd pref - I would imagine that views within Respect would harden on that, since that was clearly a compromise designed in part to accommodate some of those who have split. With those people no longer around to argue for support for Livingstone, I’d imagine that Respect might come closer to my personal view. I plan only to use one preference, for Lindsey German.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Brian Haw is standing as well, just to confuse things even further….surprisingly populist mix of right and left ideas…see Indy media or Liam’s blog….also John Bird.
I have also discussed Ken on my own blog…the Green Party is pretty grassroots democratic so as Aled notes earlier the London Federation of Green Parties will decide.
Comment by Derek Wall — 6 January, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
#27 KrisS - what makes you think Lindsey German will be standing?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
As far as I’m aware, PE, that’s still the plan. I know that some of those who have split suggest that the plan has been abandoned, but I’ve neither seen nor heard any evidence for that.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
(And as I’ve said before, whether or not Respect stands a candidate, I don’t plan to give Livingstone a vote of any kind)
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Derek, John Bird is not standing, he has withdrawn.
KrisS, by proposing to use just one vote and that this should not be for Ken Livingstone, proposes to abstain from whether Boris Johnson should run London from 2 May this year. Boris Johnson is a right wing, Thatcherite Tory who is solidly against the interests of working class people. To abstain from such a decision is to say it does not matter if the interests of the majority of Londoners are damaged. This is totally alien to socialist politics, or any form of progressive politics at all.
JM argues: ‘The Green Party can’t say Sian 1 Ken 2, as it will get them in trouble with the electoral commission. This is why Respect didn’t say Lyndsey 1 Ken 2 at the last GLA.’
This is untrue. Respect did formally have this position last time, but failed to carry it out in any meaningful sense for reasons best known to those running Lindsey German’s campaign.
It is of course perfectly lawful for candidates to call for other candidates to be elected particularly under the second preference voting system. If a party were spend significant resources on such a call then Ken Livingstone would have to declare that as his own expenditure, but I expect this would be seen as a small price to pay for having a united progressive vote in London.
Indeed, a united progressive campaign around Ken Livingstone would be the right thing to do.
Derek argues that the Green party is democratic and will decide in the fullness of time. George Galloway has, by contrast, taken a totally clear position on this point by saying he has no hesitation in wanting Ken Livingstone elected over Boris Johnson. Indeed, he appears to be going further and to be considering taking the view that Respect Renewal should not stand a candidate against Ken Livingstone at all, but running an energetic campaign to get on the Assembly - ie to fight to win the support of the left wing of Ken’s vote. Salma Yaqoob is a signatory to the letter of Muslim leaders backing Ken.
No Ken Livingstone voter has any reason to consider voting Green in the Assembly elections if they are unable to make their minds up on such a simple choice.
Comment by ellis mcgowan — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
How much further to the right would Livingstone have to move before you’d decide not to support him, ellis?
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
#23 you can say Lindsey 1 Ken 2, but if you print it on your leaflets you get in a tangle with the electoral commission because then you are contributing to Ken’s campaign costs and this gets v messy v soon
Comment by JM — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
#34 jm - that seems to be true, but people should say that, rather than say that it isn’t allowed.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
KrisS asks ‘How much further to the right would Livingstone have to move before you’d decide not to support him, ellis’
But it is in fact KrisS, by refusing to use either of two mayoral votes for Ken Livingstone, who is aiding right wing politics by abstaining on whether Boris Johnson should run London. In effect, by abstaining, this is to say it does not matter to be willing to accept a right wing onslaught in London. This is a million times more right wing that anything Ken Livingstone has ever done or said, because it is saying it is ok to throw London’s public services to the Tory wolves.
But Livingstone’s administration is objectively progressive and his re-election should be supported in its own right.
Opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; strong opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear power; support for the peace movement; delivery of massive improvements to public transport, notably the bus service; introduction of the London Living Wage; solidarity with Venezuela; opposition to the blockade of Cuba; campaigning strongly against racism; introduction of free bus and tram travel for all under-18s; defence of free travel for older people and disabled people; introduction of half price bus travel for those on income support; licensing of minicab trade leading to reductions in sexual assaults; introduction of the first British civil partnerships register; banning ads by holiday companies with homophobic policies towards same sex couples; staunch opposition to Islamophobia and refusal to concede to vicious tabloid hate campaigns against Muslims, introducing the policy that 50 per cent of all new homes built in London should be affordable; placing London at the forefront of environmental policies and leading cities around the world against climate change. Perhaps most importantly by raising investment in public services and ending years of underinvestment in services that were declining alarmingly.
I will certainly campaigning and voting for that - and against the Thatcherite Johnson.
Others can abstain if they wish.
Comment by ellis mcgowan — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
So is the point that “left-wing” candidates should be supported at all times? Or that any candidate who is opposed by a more right-wing one should always be supported? Or some combination of the two, to be decided, as a tactical question, in each individual situation?
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Or some combination of the two, to be decided, as a tactical question, in each individual situation?
Well, duh, if you’ll pardon the expression. Johnson is unusually (although not uniquely) awful, even for a Tory; Livingstone is unusually (although not uniquely) radical for a Labour candidate; the London mayoralty is unusually important, as local elections go; and this particular contest is unusually finely balanced. If Ken was at 65% in the polls, or if his main rival was Brian Paddick, or if Boris Johnson was running against Hazel Blears, or if the post was Mayor of Bromley, there would be a lot more to be said in favour of your position (and Richard’s).
Comment by Phil — 6 January, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Your argument, Phil - that Livingstone is a particularly good leftie, and Johnson a particularly nasty tory - has some merit, as a tatical deliberation. I’m sure you appreciate that different people will draw those lines in different places at different times. I’m not finally decided on my own position, and I’m happy to engage in the argument, and can imagine being persuaded.
ellis was saying that Livingstone’s administration is objectively progressive and his re-election should be supported in its own right. Which isn’t the same argument.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Good point - I must have skated over that bit. I think I’m actually closer to your position on this one than Ellis’s (not that I’ve got a vote).
Comment by Phil — 6 January, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Aled and Matt (5&6) sum things up quite nicely but I’ll add two practical points here.
Firstly, if the Greens call for a second preference vote for Livingstone, or Sian Berry states she’ll be using her second vote for Livingstone, then it makes far more sense to do that during the campaign, and probably on the eve of postal votes going out. It will attract far more attention that it would by announcing it in the Morning Star or on SUN now. The effect of a Green call for second votes to go to Livingstone during the campaign will reduce the number of Green second preference votes going to the Lib Dems, and redirect these to KL.
A second preference from the Greens is going to be worth something to Livingstone and as a Green I think we should maximise the benefit to London’s environment. There are environmentalist objections to supporting Livingstone, as raised above, but these can be dealt with if there is something tangible Greens can show their supporters if KL is re-elected. By waiting until a critical point, a Green Party call for a 2nd preference vote for KL will be much more effective.
Secondly, anyone with a realistic understanding of the current levels of support in London knows it will be Labour v Tory Mayoral contest in the final round. People are perhaps missing the significance of the London Assembly and much more detailed discussions about how best the left should influence the outcome of the Assembly elections. The Electoral mathematics are very important.
The Mayor wields progressive clout because the Greens have supported his budgets. However a 2/3rds vote in the Assembly can present an alternative budget. If Labour lose one seat (Enfield & Haringey - 2004 majority of just 1574) and Greens retain two seats, there will be a Conservative and Lib Dem coalition (possibly with a non-aligned BNP Assembly member) capable of setting a different budget with a 2/3rds vote.
While we Greens are confident we can gain at least one extra Assembly seat, we know that if Labour lose one and we fail to make a gain, then London’s budgets are handed over to the Tories and Lib Dems. It is commonly understood that votes for parties on the top up list who finish with less than 5% of the Assembly vote are wasted, because they end up with no representation.
If 5% isn’t a realistic target for (either) Respect, and as a combined movement less than 5% was gained in 2004, then perhaps targeting City and East under FPTP is a more strategic approach. If the left is to be consistent in supporting Livingstone against the much worse option of a Tory led agenda, then discussion such as these have to encompass the dynamics in the Assembly elections as well.
Comment by Peter Cranie — 6 January, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
The issue is not simply who will be mayor (although failure to place Ken Livingstone as No 1 or at least No 2 is to strengthen the Tory bid).
The issue is what kind of Assembly will be best placed to carry out progressive polices. This can only be an assembly with a majority of Labour, socialist and green members. And one led by Livingstone. The points made by Peter Cranie on the budget need taking into account.
If this is to happen then Labour needs to be persuaded, coerced or otherwise influenced to select candidates that better reflect the needs of working people. This requires a combination of trade union pressure and the threat of substantial support for opponents to the left in the event of a right wing Labour candidate being selected.At the constituency level, where realistically, the best chances to defeat pro big business candidates from the Tories and the Lib Dems rest mostly with Labour the prospects are not promising. There are some prospects of a first past the post win in East London/City and maybe Labour needs to understand that where they cannot win they should trade ‘territory for peace’.
This is a big ask but all actors this drama need to understand that PR is a different game and requires hard headed realism not macho posturing if the end result is to be won.
As far as the list goes every political formation on the Green, Respect, trade union, socialist and communist spectrum needs to find some form of unity in action.
If a joint list is not possible then some kind of agreement not to present big business and right wing Labour candidates with a divided opposition is the minimum needed.
If the Greens insist on going it alone and refusing to treat with others on the left they will win something, possibly some seats, but they will compromise the prospect of substantial support from the left in other situations and in the future. They will also set themselves on a course to the right similar to the trajectory of the Irish and German Greens.
If the fragments of Respect fail to find some form of cohabitation they will stand to lose everything they have won. And if the sectarian tendency that seems to be present in every left wing organisation wins out in these processes then we all lose.
The big factor in all this is the mounting rate of abstention in working class areas. Proportional voting, even of the limited kind in the London election offers the prospect of giving the politically disenfranchised something to vote for. But it needs to be a credible challenge and it needs to reflect the full diversity of London working people.
Comment by Nick Wright — 6 January, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
To give Livingstone a second as opposed to a first preference is “to strengthen the Tory bid” to an extent, isn’t it?
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
I don’t believe so. As long as Ken finishes in the top two (which will obviously happen) then a second pref has exactly the same weight as a first pref in the final reckoning. Thats how I understand it, anyway?
Comment by Matt S — 6 January, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
It means that Livingstone is less likely to win on the first round, thereby making it more likely that second prefs will come into play.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
#32 Ellis, #41 Peter & #42 Nick - this is a hugely important discussion - and we know Derek Wall is following it…
It looks like everybody is on the mood for an electoral pact-type arrangement which maximises the effectiveness of the progressive vote at the Mayoral election. This is fantastic. If an arrangement could be found covering the three elements of the elections (Mayoral first & second preference, Assembly FPTP constituency seats, Assembly PR top up seats) that plays to each contributor’s strengths; if all the activists in the Greens, both Respects, the pro-Livingstone/anti-New Labour left within Labour could be up for it and work to deliver it; if we could respect our diversity whilst recognising what unites us far outweighs that which divides us… fucking hell, this could be incredible! The positive experience of working together; the joy of a big win - all this is up for grabs. It could be a real pointer to the way forward for a borad left party in the future.
Whilst the alternative is so dire - staying within our absurd, purist, puritan comfort zones such that we cancel each other out, our split message is deservedly ignored by the voters, fucking it up so that the Tories, LibDems (&BNP??) have Ken’s budget by the balls - or worse, Bozza actually wins - that it is desperately depressing that this is what we may opt for.
The need now is to build the sense that a pact is what is needed - the details of the pact can follow…however, I can hardly resist a first try to sketch something out, here goes:
In the Mayoralty, Respect Renewal stand down and all Respecters go all out campaigning for Lindsey German 1st pref, Ken 2nd pref
In the Assembly FPTP constituency seats, Respect Renewal, Respect SWP and the Greens agree not to fight each other in any seat, and for local branches to work for each other’s candidates on the doorstep in each constituency. Respect Renewal fight City East and everyone goes all put to dump that arse John Biggs.
In the Assembly top up both Respects stand down and everyone goes all out to get a third Green (Noel Lynch) elected to the Assembly. In return, Noel agrees to espouse various Respect policies and causes when elected (eg anti-privatisation, pro-council housing etc) - to be in effect a Green/Respect member when elected. I’m sure he’d be up for it, I mean he’s a great guy!!
These are just musings from somebody not close to the action. But by God, wouldn’t this be a better scenario than three minor parties (+others RMT candidates or whatever) cancelling each other out so that no progress is made on 2 Green assembly members, zero Respect members. In a way Respect (SWP) are in the pivotal position. They are in the weakest position in terms of having a chance of getting anyone elected, but quite strong in terms of their ability to wreck things in City East constituency and in the topup poll. So a great chance for SWP to show that their rhetoric on nonsectarianism is meaningful. Let serious talks commence!
Comment by Strategist — 6 January, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
In such a scenario, I’d be willing to think about holding my nose and sticking Livingstone down as 2nd pref.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Well strategist nice idea, but why this sentence “but quite strong in terms of their ability to wreck things in City East constituency and in the topup poll.” Hardly Unity.
Anyhow, the SWP/Respect is also in a great position to provide loads of activists.
Comment by anticapitalista — 6 January, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
The following statement has been put out by the British Muslim Initiative on the GLA and election for London Mayor:
“The British Muslim Initiative is pleased to announce that in an unprecedented step, a document supporting the re-election of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London in May this year, has been signed by more than sixty main Muslim organisations and figureheads who represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims in London.
The signed document states:
“Since June 2000, Ken Livingstone has been an outstanding Mayor of London. He has stood out in support of a multi-cultural society and has supported the Muslim communities of the city against racism and Islamophobia as well as all other minorities against all types of prejudice. His stands and policies have constantly championed justice in the Middle East and around the world, freedom for the Palestinians and withdrawal of occupying troops from Iraq; a rare trait of modern-day public figures. He has enhanced London’s standing in the world and helped improve the lives of all of the city’s communities. For those and many more traits continuously and consistently demonstrated by the Ken Livingstone, we the undersigned believe that it is in the best interest of the Muslim communities of London, and indeed all Londoners, to back Mr. Livingstone in this year’s mayoral elections.
We pledge to continue our support for the Mayor on all levels possible in order to secure his staying in office for a third term.”
The document which was initiated by BMI, found a near consensus among organisations and figures that represent the entire spectrum of London Muslims that Ken Livingstone was the right man for the job. It is worth noting that the organisations who have endorsed the statement are grass root organisations with significant memberships and considerable presence throughout the community as a whole.
Anas Altikriti, speaking for BMI commented: “This is a truly historic document, which shows that Muslims in London who represent all tendencies and backgrounds, recognise that not only has Ken Livingstone been a superb friend of Muslims at their hour of need, but that he is truly a fantastic mayor and an admired figure throughout the world for his constant principled stands on crucial issues of justice, peace and dialogue. There is almost a full consensus amongst London’s 11% Muslims on backing Ken Livingstone in May elections.”
For further information and interviews please contact BMI media office on 07786 257120
British Muslim Initiative
Plus:
“Ken Livingstone has consistently used his office to oppose war and promote the cause of peace. He has stood firm against racism, championed the rights of minorities against prejudice and discrimination, and been one of the strongest advocates for a diverse and multicultural society. At home and abroad he has supported those struggling for justice.
This year’s Mayoral elections will be a battleground. On one side are those who want a Mayor who stands up for peace, equality and justice. On the other side are those who would attack and dismantle everything that is progressive about Ken Livingstone’s administration. It is essential that we do everything possible to see that Ken Livingstone is re-elected as Mayor of London.”
Salma Yaqoob-Vice Chair Respect
……………………..
One thing I am sure off is that ‘Tory Boris’ must be stopped and that a defeat for Livingstone would be seen by the establishment as a defeat for ALL on the left. In many ways what sort of ‘aletrnative left coalition’ we can form for the GLA elections is of far more interest and one all on the left should be discussing (here is a real chance for the Greens to work with Socialists in Respect and outside but I’ve yet to see it happen at local level).
The election of Mayor is between Johnson and Livingstone (with all his many, many faults) one or other will win (and the Green campaign and a possible campaign by Lindsey German will unfortunatly hardly register in the media) and currently in the last opinion poll there was only 1% between them.
Had there not been a split in Respect, had we a Respect that was united and growing in support (rather than the losing members at the time of the split)we could have seriously talked about a left aletrnative to Livingstone - but that is not the world we now live in is it? (thanks to the SWP).
A would welcome any comments from readers of this web site on this issue on my own blog that is currently carrying news on Livingstone and the election for Mayor and the position Respect Renewal should adopt.
Neil
Respect Supporters Blog
Comment by Neil Williams — 6 January, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
I really don’t want to pour cold water on enthusiasm here, but these ideas look like a bit of a re-run of the Euro 2004 elections to me - the ones where RESPECT formed, asked the Greens a few months before the elections to completely rearrange their democratically decided plans, and then got confused when Greens refused.
The time to have been talking about deals and pacts etc over the GLA elections was in mid 2007. We are less than four months away from the elections now! The Green Party has a full slate of candidates, active campaign teams, has done all its planning, and so on. I’m not involved in the London Fed (nor in national GPEW much really, at the moment) but I would imagine that the chances of there being a strategic deal reached now (other than where the Green second preferences should be directed) is pretty much nil. You can’t win elections by coming up with schemes less than four months before the polling day….and even if you could, Green Party policy is decided by internal branch deliberation etc. You can’t expect a major strategic shift to happen without serious debate and national discussion, which would take months.
Sorry, I know I sound like a grump, but we’re going to need to have serious, long-term discussions about these things, rather than just coming up with plans on the offchance and expecting established candidates to stand down.
Matt
P.S. Its important to note that I don’t speak for the Green Party or its London Fed though, this is just my personal opinion. Aled might like to comment, as he is actually a GLA candidate and knows much more than I do about all of this.
P.P.S. I would be a strong and vocal supporter of a proper meeting of ‘progressive forces’ nationally, to try to work these kinds of issues out. We have to be realistic and understand that it would take many months of discussion to even begin to get somewhere though.
Comment by Matt S — 6 January, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
It is a hugely unlikely prospect - not just for this time around, either. I doubt that those on the left who don’t already have candidates selected etc could get this far in time, let alone those who do.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
#48 Anticapitalista - “why this sentence..”?
No justifiable reason, comrade, I take it back. And apologise. I guess I cut loose a bit, & disengaged brain on reaching the final sentence of a big post…
I’ve got loads of respect for Respect/SWP activists. I saw with my own eyes the efforts they put in on the doorstep in Bethnal Green & elsewhere. What was achieved could absolutely no way have been achieved without the SWP/Respect (SWP).
Just to clarify my own position on the Respect split (current position, not necessarily final). I was in Respect, but I think to split was such a disgrace that I have resolved to support neither side in the current formulation, until somebody gives some ground. You should know I am fractionally more inclined to the Galloway point of view (to demand the resignation of his parliamentary staff was an outrageous escalation).
“Well strategist nice idea”. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for those kind words, it gives me hope. On the electoral pact, I was thinking that somebody should lock up the leadership of all the relevant parties (both Respects, the Greens, John McDonnell, Ken even) in a country house somewhere and not let them out until they have negotiated something as nice, preferably nicer, to bring back and recommend to branches of each party in London. If no progress after a few days, stop sending in the food, just like they do at the Vatican! Remember, this approach saw Sinn Fein sign a deal with the DUP! Derek Wall could perhaps book Windsor Castle.
Comment by Strategist — 6 January, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
#50 Thanks Matt, a serious contribution. Of course you are right, but at what price? - a split vote, and failure. The 2007 Scottish election should be a salutary lesson to all. The SSP split, fought each other to prove a point and were utterly wiped out. But with a badly muddled left of Labour message, the Greens did terribly badly too and the voters departed in their droves to back the party that seemed united & on a roll - the SNP.
I think you’re agreeing with me that it is easier for activists to stay within their comfort zone and fail than to dare to step outside it in order to succeed. Preventing this is what leadership within a party is for. I’m not advocating dictatorship, just that leaders within a party who keep an eye on what the actual voters think should try to convince the activists to think outside their box occasionally.
You say you think it is all too late for this, but as far as the voters are concerned, the campaign (esp the Assembly campaign) doesn’t even start for a month or two yet. Events happen and you can’t set everything in stone 12 months before the event. A good general responds quickly to changes on the ground - and what is on offer is a load of committed Respect activists who could have delivered 3-4% for Lindsey German and in the Assembly top ups and denied the Greens their third seat. Now they could be available to campaign for it.
Comment by Strategist — 6 January, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
#47 - Just in case someone tries to hold me to something I haven’t intended, I meant in a general sense, and am not necessarily endorsing the specific proposal made here by Strategist.
Comment by KrisS — 6 January, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
#52 Strategist
I was talking to comrades in Greece today (SEK) and all agreed what a shame that there isn’t a united Respect/Green/left of Labour candidate for Mayor in London that will ’shake’ the Establishment.
The same here happened in the recent General Election.
IF all the parties to the left of PASOK had stood some sort of United Electoral Left anti-capitalist/imperialist/socialist Bloc, I’m convinced the Left could even have beaten PASOK into second place, certainly in the big cities, and instead of 26 MP’s there would be double that and well over a million voters (rather than just under) out of a population of 11 million.
Instead all these parties/coalitions stood separately:
Greek Communist Party (KKE) got about 8% (over 500,000 votes)
Radical Left Alliance (SYRIZA) got about 5% (over 360,000 votes)
Ecologist Greens (75,000 votes)
Revolutionary left groups of Maoists, Trots etc (just under 50,000 votes)
Comment by anticapitalista — 6 January, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
#55 Thanks for this anticapitalista. You get better perspective when you’re outside a country and looking from a distance - the differences diminish to nothing and what unites shines out clear. So it goes in reverse - anyone in England looking to Greece would of course think that a voting bloc of around 15% would be far better off being united than divided. Same applies to France, in spades. What a cock up - superb activism in the EU referendum campaign translated through to zero impact in the presidential election, due to split vote.
So thanks for contributing from a Greek perspective. You make me nostalgic for my time as a red Lesbian (in Mytilini)
Comment by Strategist — 7 January, 2008 @ 12:25 am
If people stopped this idiotic nonsense about the Green Party being somehow a Left Party, then the fantasies about them calling on a 2nd preference vote for Livingstone will melt away. The second preferences of Green voters went all over the shop last time - which is hardly suprising because Green votes are nebulous, they come from people vaguely Left, vaguely Right, all points between and a general protest vote. Sian Berry will not formally/officially call for a second preference for Livngstone and annoy part of her potential vote. End of story.
Comment by Doug — 7 January, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Doug,
Well in Greece there are 2 maybe 3 green parties/organisations that certainly do see themselves as Left, and not vaguely, but socialist and anti-capitalist.
Comment by anticapitalista — 7 January, 2008 @ 11:52 am
It is true that the Greens have selected their candidates and laid their plans. Haven’t we all. That, plus whatever electoral or organisational support we can bring to bear, is what gives us all something to negotiate about.
It is true that the Green vote is hetereogenous, then so is everyone’s. (Lenin, writing about the interregnum between the two 1917 revolutions famously said that the Bolsheviks fished in the same waters as the Black Hundreds ie the far right).
This points to the biggest prize which is not where a few thousand stray Green votes might go on the second ballot but how to mobilise the many working class voters who find nothing worth voting for.
Comment by Nick Wright — 7 January, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Hmmm,
If, after the way the SWP behaved in Respect, the SSP and the SA, anyone tries to suggest the Greens form some kind of working relationship with them they are clearly living in fantasy land.
Time and time again we see the only way the SWP can participate in things is if they control them. If they can’t control it they will wreck it. Never mind if we agree on policies, they have shown themselves to be unworkable and unreliable partners….
Of course the SWP are not the only far left group who behave like this (or would behave like if the had the members). But really, blaming divisions on the left on the Green parties, not the trotskyite fragments seems to miss the real problem, no?
The UK has seen three left unity projects collapse in recent years - why should the greens get involved in another attempt?
Comment by Marky mark — 7 January, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
I will not be voting. I’m far left politically. Ken Livingstone and the party he’s standing for are a major reason I won’t be voting.
I don’t care who the Greens give a second preference to, or call for a second preference for. I cannot ever give Livingstone a mandate. Full stop.
Comment by Stuart — 7 January, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Oh, I’d vote for Lindsey German, except she won’t be standing in my opinion. And I’m annoyed with her for calling for a second preference for Ken.
Comment by Stuart — 7 January, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
isn’t it much more likely that the london greens would vote to reconmend second preferences to the lib dems or tories, given the greens refusal to work with labour in any other local government?
Comment by someone — 7 January, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Stuart,
How long have you been posting? I’ve been posting under the name Stuart for some weeks. I’ve sided with the SWP side in the RESPECT debate. I think the Galloway faction have deserted the UNITY COALITION as originally set up, they cannot get their way via democratic means and should therefore do the honest thing by forming a separate party without calling themselves RESPECT and without hinting at using the law over the name.
We need to do something about our posting ‘name’to avoid confusion.
Comment by stuart — 7 January, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
someone,
Where do you get that from?
Matt
Comment by Matt S — 7 January, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Hello Stuart. I’ll call myself Stu.
I sided with the SWP over everything until they sidelined me (as a fraternal member) because I suggested we canvass rather than leaflet in the last mayoral election (I was clearly winning the vote in my local respect branch, so they voted with me, but because they controlled the lists when I phoned to ask when we were canvassing they said no-one wanted to, so I asked for the phone list and they said they couldn’t give it out but I could “join them leafletting or canvass on your own”)
Comment by Stuart — 7 January, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Sorry the above was me. I’m now Stu.
Comment by Stu — 7 January, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
T
Comment by Strategist — 7 January, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
To respond to Marky Mark (#60) - it’s not a left unity project (at this stage) it’s an electoral pact - no need to work together or agree common policies as such, simply to carve up the territory, you might say, so that energy is not wasted on cancelling each other out, but that all available fire can be trained on the actual enemy (Bozza’s Tories & the New Labour clique).
Nick (#59) - I agree, and would that add mobilising those non-voters would be hard enough if there was an electoral deal and a single, clear message. Without it, we just get a bunch of weak, dissonant messages from a confusing left and the disengagement switch-off just gets worse.
I don’t know what the other totally negative contributions are supposed to achieve - it’s something this blog seems to attract and is very dispiriting…
Comment by Strategist — 8 January, 2008 @ 12:09 am
As usual we face the usual bludgeon from the Labour Party ranks: advocate voting for Labour or the sky will fall in. Again we’re confronted with the face of Labour that we’re more familiar with: authoritarian snipes to back up the usual lazy lies, usually about something that should make you afraid that will require you to vote, unflinchingly, for Labour, for ever.
I don’t want a tory for mayor but I already have a scabbing, privatising mayor. I think people need to be reminded that Ken scabbed and advocated breaking the RMT’s strike- twice and publicly. No matter what gloss KL’s campaign may wish to cover this with, I’ve never voted for a scab and I don’t intend to start voting for one now. And further I’d expect a discussion on a Socialist blog to take the issue of voting for a scab more seriously. Labour once many moons ago was set up to triumph over the strike breakers: it’s clearly complacent now to join them.
Now that Labour are desperate for our votes they’ll wheel out all the talk about how workers can put pressure on Ken- omitting the bit about how contrary to public opinion, and against the strong line put forward by the unions, articulating the case against privatisation, he privatised the East London Line.
How could I forget the Olympics- noone wanted them (apart from Tory boy and Ken’s chum Seb Coe) and now Londoners will pay for them (for ever it seems!), while local arts and sports initiatives are left to rot as they don’t grab the sufficient headlines. We’ve already heard this week that Arts Council funding is drying up for many of the important, small projects in the capital and over the country.
We know already from the substantial contracts given out and from the major sponsors that these Olympics will truly be a festival of exploitation and abuse of workers’ rights. Whether it’s the supply chain of where security will come from (Group 4) through to advertising contracts with McShit, our ‘pliable’ Ken has created a feast for the global elite, while permitting abuse of workers’ rights in using companies that don’t allow unions.
Vote for Neo Labour and their oh-so-worker-friendly policies? 3 major reasons above not to. Not on your life!
Comment by ecosoc — 8 January, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Hi ’stu’,
Thanks for changing the name.
Just to continue, I think a lot of people on the board have an unhealthy obsesson with the SWP, they are mainly ex members which probably explans it.
They say in one breath that the SWP is useless but in the other they kind of want the SWP to bury any differences with Galloway/Yaqoob both of whom they admire. They can’t seem to accept that due to the political climate the alliance with people like GG has run its course. Politically it would seem that Galloway/Yaqoob are rushing headlong into an uncritical embrace with Livingstone, something which regardless of any tactical voting, the SWP would have resisted.
And it frustrates sectarian thinkers on this blog, people who probably at one time regarded themself as revolutionary but now blur the boundary with reform, that the SWP, though its democratic machinery, backs the CC.
Galloway appears to think he owns the rights to RESPECT despite pulling out of the UNITY COALITION. If he were honest and blessed with integrity he would form an entirely separate party with a new name and do it soon.
Comment by stuart — 8 January, 2008 @ 3:52 pm