Green Party will not contest Barking in push to beat BNP
I have been conflicted about this and it has caused a lot of debate in the Green Party. I think if she cares about anything Margaret Hodge should stand down in Barking, her excesses have helped to build the BNP. I don’t think there is much debate that a different Labour Party candidate would be more like to win. If there was a strong Green or Left alternative in Barking it would have been a different matter but I think parachuting in candidates is bound to fail. Incidentally I would have liked the Green Party to withdraw candidates in the key East London RESPECT constituencies but that is another matter. In the circumstances I would go with the Green Left statement below….incidentally any of you out there going to be going on the doorsteps for whoever you deem good left candidates?
“Green Left welcomes the decision of the London Federation of Green Parties to call for no Green Party candidate to stand in the forthcoming general election for the constituency of Barking, in order to maximise the anti-Fascist vote. We regard this as a decision in favour of all progressive groups campaigning against the BNP in Barking and we pledge our full support for all efforts to defeat Nick Griffin and the BNP there. Despite wishing to provide voters with a progressive alternative, under the circumstances we consider it the best strategic decision not to stand a candidate in this election. We call on all voters in Barking to vote against the politics of hate and the BNP” is the Green Left statement.
Not really sure how all this works internally but how does the London Federation make a decision about Barking but Newham and TH make their own decision? Or is this not a binding decision on Barking, but a recommendation they’re likely to agree to?
Comment by Mike — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Local parties are autonomous and make the final decision on whether to stand a candidate. This is the first time, that I am aware of, that a regional party has advised a local party not to do so. Unfortunately, the local party - which is tiny - could always decide to ignore the wishes of the London wide party.
Comment by Sean T — 22 December, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
In the words of Elinor Ostrom the Green Party is polycentric much has both strengths and weaknesses.
Comment by Derek Wall — 22 December, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
I meant ‘which has’
Comment by Derek Wall — 22 December, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
No disrespect to Derek but all this talk of who will or will not be the candidate here there and everywhere, is a bit like carving up the Christmas Turkey, only we end up with a plate full of giblets!
Comment by In The Box — 22 December, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Derek, when does the actual decision by your relevant local party (Havering Branch isn’t it?) Take place?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Hi Karl,
not sure but I will let you know, I would be surprised though if they stood.
Comment by Derek Wall — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Much as I loathe Margaret Hodge and believe she has played a major role in laying the ground for Griffin, in terms of preventing what would be a huge coup for the fascists it is vital that the anti-Griffin vote is not split. so I hope that the local Greens go along with the recommendation of the London Fed and note the statement of Green Left.
I think this is a special case and should not be used to deter Red or Green or Red/Green candidates standing against Labour elsewhere, even if it may give the Tories more of a chance in some consitituencies.
I don’t think the overall result is in doubt. Blair and Brown respectively have guaranteed a Cameron government to continue and deepen the neo-liberal agenda. So it is important that progressive candidates continue to build up their presence and work towards being in a position in the long-term of becoming a credible electoral opposition to the Tories as well as leading campaigns locally.
Glad that the Greens are standing down in favour of campaigning to get Salma Yacoob elected for Respect in Birmingham but don’t feel bothered about Greens not standing down for Galloway, as after many years exposure to Galloway’s “progressive” views I am yet to be convinced that he is any kind of progressive alternative.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
8# but don’t feel bothered about Greens not standing down for Galloway, as after many years exposure to Galloway’s “progressive” views I am yet to be convinced that he is any kind of progressive alternative.
tell me about it
Comment by doom and gloom — 22 December, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
The headline seems to jump the gun, here. But let’s hope the local party follows through.
Comment by KrisS — 22 December, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
The reality is, Hodge is over playing the BNP threat in her ongoing war with the councillors who dislike her. It is the council that is under threat from the BNP, not Hodge.
Comment by Red Bob — 22 December, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
#6 Karl your interest in this question appears to be in sharp contrast to your normally dimissive attitude to the “non-working class” Greens (or would be were it not for the fact that you are not as sectarian and ecomomistic as… (have I made this point somewhere else?)…)
Comment by Armchair — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:00 am
Comment by Barry Kade — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:56 am
While agreeing with the practical need to support Labout here, I hope this does not descend into a general avoidance of contests woth labour whetere there are BNP candidates, of which about 50 have been declared so far, often in entirely new areas for them.
Comment by JimPage — 23 December, 2009 @ 10:00 am
‘after many years exposure to Galloway’s “progressive” views I am yet to be convinced that he is any kind of progressive alternative.’
That’s the George Galloway who is currently on an aid convoy to break the Israeli siege of Gaza, and causing huge political shockwaves in the Middle East whilst doing it. The only European politician leading on a concrete initiative for a starved and ignored people.
Just so we’re clear.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 23 December, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Galloway’s “progressive” views ?
Anyone who has given any support at all or defended or apologised for the Hamas or Ahmadinejad cliques cannot be termed progressive. They are two of the most vicious totalitarian gangsters in the world today.
Today is the first anniversary of the introduction of crucifixion in Gaza (Hamas Legislation 23/12/2008).
Let’s hope George’s personal cash donation was not spent on nails.
Comment by Martin Kelly — 23 December, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Oh I would ever so like to hear a source for that “crucifixion” story that wasn’t a Zionist propaganda site - no “Palestinian media watch” please, no “Israeli national news”, let’s hear some passing attempt to document another lie. Funny how the Zionist trolls are so exercised about non-existent crucifixions yet whoop with joy when people are killed with rockets, missiles, grenades and bullets.
Comment by Ed W — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Galloway ain’t perfect, guess I haven’t made up my mind, but some stories about him are obviously just slander.
Margaret Hodge and Nick Griffin, how utterly depressing for the people of Barking. How about Billy Bragg standing?
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
“We regard this as a decision in favour of all progressive groups campaigning against the BNP in Barking”
There is one simple problem with this statement. Margaret Hodge is not progressive.
Comment by Paul Stott — 23 December, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
It doesn’t say she is.
Comment by KrisS — 23 December, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
“…the Hamas or Ahmadinejad cliques cannot be termed progressive. They are two of the most vicious totalitarian gangsters in the world today.”
In fact, probably worse than Hitler.
Comment by Omar — 23 December, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
“In fact, probably worse than Hitler.”
I think you’re being too soft, actually. Everyone knows that Hamas are worse than Satan himself, and by refusing to support Israel’s war against Hamas, Galloway has revealed himself to be none other than Beelzebub.
Comment by Ed W — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
N0. 18: Interesting idea for Labour party candidate - Bragg for Barking! Maybe he is too content living the squire’s life in Wiltshire to bother with applying the values that made him rich, beyond the occasional gig and a couple of albums a decade.
At least we could be sure that the Barking Bard would have no truck with Gay executioner Ahmadinejad and the latter’s Gaza arm.
Comment by Hugh — 25 December, 2009 @ 12:53 am
#23 Hugh
And who would you prefer as Labour candidate for Barking Hugh ?
Comment by Halshall — 25 December, 2009 @ 9:45 am