Greens hit 90 seats

[tbaldwin]

From 15% nationally to now boasting about 13% in Bristol. Cant really see much signs of real progress. Why when the govt were on the ropes and the Liberals had just elected a hopeless stuck up twat as leader didnt the Greens do better?

 

[JTG]

Comparing the vote now with the 1989 euros is ridiculous though, the 1989 euros were a one off which the Greens weren't prepared to capitalise on.

The steady rise in Green elected representatives is real progress - did the five gains in Lewisham or the four in Norwich pass you by? With each election they're fielding more candidates, win more seats and get higher votes.

It's hard to make progress faster with limited resources, membership and media coverage. Even the Lib Dems have vastly greater resources to throw at elections than the Greens have and the BNP get much more extensive coverage. Personally I think that given the constraints on the party compared to their rivals they are doing very well and will get better with each passing election.

 

[JTG]

From 15% nationally to now boasting about 13% in Bristol. Cant really see much signs of real progress.

To be honest this comment is ridiculous. I gave the Bristol results as an example of solid, steady progress. You're taking it as the be all and end all of green achievement.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Outside of Salma Yaqoob's election, which I warmly welcome, there is very little achieved by Respect this time that has impressed me. Salma Yaqoob would have got elected whatever political party she stood for, because she is Salma Yaqoob, not because she is from Respect. Many of us have previously inhabited a different party from the one we are currently in, as part of a personal political journey.

If Yaqoob ever leaves you don't really have a great future.

Indeed. They'd be fucked in Birmingham if that happened.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I cant see the SWP staying in RESPECT for that much longer.

Agree with this too. I was speaking with a SWP member the other day and they said it was a shame only Muslims got elected in Tower Hamlets and it would have been nice if other candidates had been elected also (ie white SWP members). If Respects electoral success increases and remains Muslim orientated the SWP will lose it's grip and it's interest in it's future.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

From 15% nationally to now boasting about 13% in Bristol. Cant really see much signs of real progress. Why when the govt were on the ropes and the Liberals had just elected a hopeless stuck up twat as leader didnt the Greens do better?

Because of the Tories?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I can understand why you'd say 'we're here, get used to it', but if you are telling us that the Greens decided to stand in just three wards in Preston, two of which were where Respect was, and it just happened that they were your best chances I don't believe you. I think what's more likely is that you chose those wards cos you want to throttle the competition.

We may have less than you now, but we're only two and a half years old, not two and a half decades, and we are coming up fast. We wouldn't stand anywhere that you had a sitting councillor, not when there were 18 other wards to choose from in that city.

Everyone would see that as sectarian - and they'd be right.

Indeed. What is being said here is that it is votes that are important, not local issues or putting out the principles under which once elected you would follow.

The Green Party candidate in Preston Town Centre ward had nothing to say about Preston council's proposal to put a barrage across the Ribble directly affecting green spaces within the ward; they had nothing to say about the chaos of Preston council's recycling scheme; they have nothing to say about the transport issues that lead to road gridlock in the ward; they have nothing to say about the pensions of local government workers. These are all issues that the existing Respect councillor for the ward, Michael Lavalette, has campaigned about in the council and taken up with local residents. Another Respect councillor would have meant taking those issues forward further in the council. See: www.prestonrespect.org

Instead the Green candidacy is defended as a sordid vote-grubbing exercise designed for an election in 3 years time to an institution that has no say whatsoever over things that affect local people in Preston Town Centre (or much else either). And completely ignoring the fact that there were plenty of other wards in the city where they could have got the 10 signatures necessary to sign the nomination paper to put up a paper candidate.

I do think this was a deliberate spoiler to prevent the growth of Respect as potential rivals to the Greens in Lancashire. People may think I am paranoid but the answers have been provided by those who claim to be fighting in the Greens from a left wing perspective. It's all about winning votes alone and not principles - like the principles that guide what you will do once elected.

In Lancashire, the Greens are in coalition with Labour and LibDems in running Lancaster City Council. In Leeds, another northern city, the Greens are in coalition with Tories and LibDems. But Greens on this list behave hysterically when, as a previous Green voter, I question whether they would join such a coalition to run my city.

Preston City is a hung council, just like Lancaster and Leeds. But the existing Respect councillors have not joined a Labour, LibDem, or Tory administration. They see the role of councillor as being to fight on behalf of the people who elected them against the 'three party' consensus, including most crucially on issues of the environment that affect local people.

If the Greens had put out a leaflet in this ward, they they would have had to have put the imprint, name and address, of their agent on it - a member of the ruling coalition with Labour and LibDems on Lancaster City Council. Local people would have had the right to question whether 'if we vote Green here, will you join a coalition with Labour, LibDems or Tories to run Preston City Council too?'.

Aiming to become 'more professional' is just a euphemism for becoming more like the three main establishment parties. Green principles are supposed to support people determining things locally. But how can not putting out a leaflet, not canvassing or even not turning up at the count, possibly be regarded as developing as a 'more professional' party? It certainly isn't about accountability to the electorate.

 

[jiggajagga]

I like the greens but don't you think that because the greens have done well in the Norwich area(fen land) and Bristol (low lying sea channel land) there there is a bit of self preservation here?
I mean, if all the reports are true both areas could be 10 ft under water in 30 yrs time?

 

[pingupete]

We wouldn't stand anywhere that you had a sitting councillor, not when there were 18 other wards to choose from in that city.

Everyone would see that as sectarian - and they'd be right.

But standing against Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert as sitting MEPs was ok when there were 10 other Euro regions to choose from? If you want to call it being sectarian in a simplistic way, absolutely fine, but that label cuts both ways if you want to throw it around.

Respect stood in all the Euro regions in 2004 because there was no electoral arrangement with the Greens. We didn't accept your advances at that time and were right not to do so. We've all read the official line about Respect bending over backwards to make reasonable offers, and that is one point of view.

Both our MEPs were re-elected while Respect candidates were not. Respect acted in a way that it felt was in the electoral interests of Respect which at that time was contrary to the interests of the Green Party.

Greens will stand in all the target areas we need to in 2007 because we again see no need for an electoral arrangement with Respect. The Green Party will act in the electoral interests of the Green Party which at this time is contrary to the interests of Respect.

If Respect had done anything extraordinary following on from Galloway's election in Bethnal Green and Bow, we would be in a different place. It hasn't happened. The reality, as we see it, is that we need to get on with getting Greens elected. The time for this debate is pretty much over.

There are good people in Respect. Many of you are on these boards. I am sure that you and others have a record of activism, principled and progressive positions on a number of issues, just as we do as Greens. I believe you are in the wrong party and it is not my role, Matt's role or the role of any Green to help out your political party and your elected politicians when they are competing with ours.

You have been let down by a succession of tactical errors on the part of your centralised power structure, largely composed of people who have never themselves been elected. There is hope for Respect if the newly elected councillors are allowed to get on with the job and you can hold onto Salma Yaqoob, who is clearly a principled and outstanding political figure, even if she is not in our party.

We are not making offers and tolerance on the left of the Greens has been exhausted by continued sniping at many levels. You are welcome to continue name calling but exactly how is that different from the last 24 months which has led us to here?

 

[Cobbles]

Good on 'em. At least some people are voting for progressive candidates.

Like the BNP? - it would appear that they have managed to more than double their presence in Local Government.

It's local elections we're talking about - tiny constituencies and a turn-out around 30% - get a couple of mates together down the pub and that'd be enough to hang onto your deposit. Fringe parties always do well where they can mobilise localised support. It's hardly a trend.

 

[JTG]

Like the BNP? - it would appear that they have managed to more than double their presence in Local Government.

It's local elections we're talking about - tiny constituencies and a turn-out around 30% - get a couple of mates together down the pub and that'd be enough to hang onto your deposit. Fringe parties always do well where they can mobilise localised support. It's hardly a trend.

You don't need a deposit to stand for the council.

Lib Dems have used their tactic of winning the council seats in the area in order to take the Parliamentary seat at a general election for years and it works. What makes you think that if the Greens, BNP and others sustain success in certain areas the same thing won't happen?

Even the Labour Party started out with no base at all.

 

[mutley]

But standing against Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert as sitting MEPs was ok when there were 10 other Euro regions to choose from? If you want to call it being sectarian in a simplistic way, absolutely fine, but that label cuts both ways if you want to throw it around.

Respect stood in all the Euro regions in 2004 because there was no electoral arrangement with the Greens. We didn't accept your advances at that time and were right not to do so. We've all read the official line about Respect bending over backwards to make reasonable offers, and that is one point of view.

Both our MEPs were re-elected while Respect candidates were not. Respect acted in a way that it felt was in the electoral interests of Respect which at that time was contrary to the interests of the Green Party.

Greens will stand in all the target areas we need to in 2007 because we again see no need for an electoral arrangement with Respect. The Green Party will act in the electoral interests of the Green Party which at this time is contrary to the interests of Respect.

If Respect had done anything extraordinary following on from Galloway's election in Bethnal Green and Bow, we would be in a different place. It hasn't happened. The reality, as we see it, is that we need to get on with getting Greens elected. The time for this debate is pretty much over.

There are good people in Respect. Many of you are on these boards. I am sure that you and others have a record of activism, principled and progressive positions on a number of issues, just as we do as Greens. I believe you are in the wrong party and it is not my role, Matt's role or the role of any Green to help out your political party and your elected politicians when they are competing with ours.

You have been let down by a succession of tactical errors on the part of your centralised power structure, largely composed of people who have never themselves been elected. There is hope for Respect if the newly elected councillors are allowed to get on with the job and you can hold onto Salma Yaqoob, who is clearly a principled and outstanding political figure, even if she is not in our party.

We are not making offers and tolerance on the left of the Greens has been exhausted by continued sniping at many levels. You are welcome to continue name calling but exactly how is that different from the last 24 months which has led us to here?

There's a difference - we stood in all regions except England and Wales, and we contacted you to see if you would do a joint list - which would prob have seen another antiwar mep from the west mids if it had happened. You weren't willing to, fair enough, so we stood - everywhere.

In Preston you did not stand everywhere, if you had (as you did in Brum) the anger would be less. You targeted the wards where Respect was strong and left vast areas of the surrounding area with no Green or Respect.

By the way, all this 'Salma Yaqoob, aint she lovely?' stuff is getting a bit nauseating. Salma is one of the founders of Respect and the national vice-chair. The implicit contempt for the elected councillors in TH and Newham, by comparison obviously councillors of no merit is getting on my bleedin' nerves. The establishment would love to treat her as an honorary token 'ethnic leader', somehow an exception that proves the rest are a rabble. Careful you don't sing from a similar hymn-sheet.

 

[Matt S]

Ah yes, because of course, as we have learnt previously, anyone who doesn't like all of RESPECT is a racist.

Don't be such a prat.

Matt

 

[Cobbles]

You don't need a deposit to stand for the council.

Lib Dems have used their tactic of winning the council seats in the area in order to take the Parliamentary seat at a general election for years and it works. What makes you think that if the Greens, BNP and others sustain success in certain areas the same thing won't happen?

Even the Labour Party started out with no base at all.

The Lib Dems are reasonably broadly based rather than one trick pony parties like the Greens and BNP so that they have a credible base to expand onto. In many of the seats where they have prevailed in Scotland, it was on the basis of managing to reduce the burden of local rates and improve Council services. A single track agenda (whether racism or tree-hugging) is hardly likely to achieve the same and engender support at national levels.

The majority of voters appear to focus on how much tax/NI comes out of their wage packet and how cheap and painless their commute is rather than purely local issues.

 

[mutley]

Ah yes, because of course, as we have learnt previously, anyone who doesn't like all of RESPECT is a racist.

Don't be such a prat.

Matt

Did i say racist? No. Keep your rolleyes to yourself.

I'm questioning the assumption that Salma's election 'counts' in a way that the other 15 victories don't seem to, and I'm also questioning the way that it seems to be taken as axiomatic that the others are probably going to jump ship, or fail to actually build the Resepct project for one reason or another.

If you feel defensive about the way your fellow member Pingu characterises Salma as in Respect, not quite of Respect, then that ain't my problem.

(Is it be a tetchy Green week or something?)

 

[TeeJay]

A single track agenda (whether racism or tree-hugging) is hardly likely to achieve the same and engender support at national levels.

You have obviously never read a Green Party manifesto. It covers just as wide a range of topics as a Lib Dem one.

 

[TeeJay]

...In Preston you did not stand everywhere, if you had (as you did in Brum) the anger would be less. You targeted the wards where Respect was strong and left vast areas of the surrounding area with no Green or Respect...

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is how the wards were picked?

I could accuse Respect of choosing to stand where the Green candidates were and ask why you didn't go and find some different wards to stand in.

Why not go and start a thread called "Respect hit 90 seats"?

(and spare us your desperate unattractive sore loser whinging)

 

[liampreston]

I was the LibDem candidate in the Town Centre ward (Preston) being discussed here. Of course the Green candidate is likely to have taken votes from Respect and me - possibly even Labour - but it is just as likely (if not more so) that the 80-odd voters contained "core" Green supporters who had, for the first time, the chance to vote Green.

It appears the Green candidate in Town Centre was just a paperless candidate used to check the waters, to see just how much work is needed to spread the Green Party across areas of Lancashire and the NW where support probably is at "black hole" status. Of course the candidates in Preston took votes away from Respect, I'm pretty sure I took votes away from Respect too. It's called democracy - when more than 2 candidates stand in a ward, they will split the electorate. It's called choice. To suggest the Green party somehow "stole" Town Centre from Respect is bitter sillyness; Ron Atkins is a much respected councillor, with over 40 years of experience in local politics. His vote tally shows he is still very much a respected candidate and popular councillor. Take away my votes (puny as they were!) and the votes from the Greens and maybe it would have been a different election; no, actually, it WOULD have been a different election, but that's what this silly game we call politics is all about.

The Greens also stood in Rural North - why did the enviromentally aware Respect party stay away here?

Respect - I know some of the people in the local Preston party and they are almost all very friendly, intelligent and determined people for whom I have genuine regard. But the paranoid side to your Party seems to be too domineering a force. The Greens stood in Preston, they just want to have a chance at fighting an election, what is wrong with that? Had Respect, or indeed the Socialist Alliance not stood in earlier elections maybe I could have had a chance to win in those years; I'll never know, but that's electioneering, you only get what the voters give you.

 

[tbaldwin]

Comparing the vote now with the 1989 euros is ridiculous though, the 1989 euros were a one off which the Greens weren't prepared to capitalise on.

The steady rise in Green elected representatives is real progress - did the five gains in Lewisham or the four in Norwich pass you by? With each election they're fielding more candidates, win more seats and get higher votes.

It's hard to make progress faster with limited resources, membership and media coverage. Even the Lib Dems have vastly greater resources to throw at elections than the Greens have and the BNP get much more extensive coverage. Personally I think that given the constraints on the party compared to their rivals they are doing very well and will get better with each passing election.

Why do you think its ridiculous if we are talking about Green party success to comment on a time when they were far more succesful? Why are they getting fewer votes now?
Do you really think the GP is doing very well?
You say given limited resources.So in other words the GP has very few active supporters?

 

[mutley]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is how the wards were picked?

No, but I find it hard to beliebve that those three wards, including the one we've won in the past as SA, were so very attractive to the greens, when the othe 15(16?) were not. Targetting Respect is a better explanation.

I could accuse Respect of choosing to stand where the Green candidates were and ask why you didn't go and find some different wards to stand in.

We already had a councilor there.

Why not go and start a thread called "Respect hit 90 seats"?

We will. one day. But not until we do.

(and spare us your desperate unattractive sore loser whinging)

It really is 'be a tetchy Green week'

 

[mutley]

I was the LibDem candidate in the Town Centre ward (Preston) being discussed here. Of course the Green candidate is likely to have taken votes from Respect and me - possibly even Labour - but it is just as likely (if not more so) that the 80-odd voters contained "core" Green supporters who had, for the first time, the chance to vote Green.

It appears the Green candidate in Town Centre was just a paperless candidate used to check the waters, to see just how much work is needed to spread the Green Party across areas of Lancashire and the NW where support probably is at "black hole" status. Of course the candidates in Preston took votes away from Respect, I'm pretty sure I took votes away from Respect too. It's called democracy - when more than 2 candidates stand in a ward, they will split the electorate. It's called choice. To suggest the Green party somehow "stole" Town Centre from Respect is bitter sillyness; Ron Atkins is a much respected councillor, with over 40 years of experience in local politics. His vote tally shows he is still very much a respected candidate and popular councillor. Take away my votes (puny as they were!) and the votes from the Greens and maybe it would have been a different election; no, actually, it WOULD have been a different election, but that's what this silly game we call politics is all about.

The Greens also stood in Rural North - why did the enviromentally aware Respect party stay away here?

Respect - I know some of the people in the local Preston party and they are almost all very friendly, intelligent and determined people for whom I have genuine regard. But the paranoid side to your Party seems to be too domineering a force. The Greens stood in Preston, they just want to have a chance at fighting an election, what is wrong with that? Had Respect, or indeed the Socialist Alliance not stood in earlier elections maybe I could have had a chance to win in those years; I'll never know, but that's electioneering, you only get what the voters give you.

On the basic point - its what happens in elections - fair enough. But my point is that the waters could equally have been tested by the Greens in any of a whole number of other wards, without seeming to act in such a hostile way towards a party that DOES have an overlap in values ie anti-war, anti corporate, people before profit..

As I've said, if they'd stuck up paper candidates across even the majority of Preston seats fair enough. Its the targeting that bugs me.

 

[Cobbles]

You have obviously never read a Green Party manifesto. It covers just as wide a range of topics as a Lib Dem one.

QED - it's the broad perception that counts - How many people actually read manifestos?

In any event, until a certain level of critical mass is achieved, there's utterly no point in pontifficating about defence and foreign policy as only a party in Government will be able to affect those.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

On the basic point - its what happens in elections - fair enough. But my point is that the waters could equally have been tested by the Greens in any of a whole number of other wards, without seeming to act in such a hostile way towards a party that DOES have an overlap in values ie anti-war, anti corporate, people before profit..

As I've said, if they'd stuck up paper candidates across even the majority of Preston seats fair enough. Its the targeting that bugs me.

Same here. The fact that the Lancaster Green Party was involved and that one of their leading members crossed swords with Lavalette in the press, does seem ample evidence to conclude that the choice of seats to stand in was not accidental.

I could have not only found ten people to sign a Green nomination paper in other parts of Preston where Labour was unchallenged, some of them would have delivered leaflets/worked for the Greens too. I also think they would have done much better in those wards than in Town Centre and St Georges too (if they were just testing the water, they'll have found it was very cold for the Greens in those wards because the battle lines have already been drawn over 4/5 previous elections between Respect and Labour).

By the way the Respect vote did rise by 3% in Town Centre Ward, despite the (first time) presence of the Greens and the long (and mostly honourable) track record of the sitting Labour councillor. (It was the Liam and the LibDems who lost out heavily - the Ming dynasty and it's support for privatisation is not popular with left wing voters)

Unfortunately the Respect vote was only 7 votes short of the target. We'll learn the lessons of that and be back to win it on future occasions, whether the Greens stand or not.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Same here. The fact that the Lancaster Green Party was involved and that one of their leading members crossed swords with Lavalette in the press, does seem ample evidence to conclude that the choice of seats to stand in was not accidental.

One person "crosses swords" with one of your lot and that's "ample" evidence of a national Green strategy to curtail the electoral success of Respect!?!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

In most places I've looked their vote was up massively

I presume the reference was to seats. The Greens actually won only 29 seats. Respect won 16 by way of comparison. The Greens have been contesting elections and holding seats since the 1970s. Respect has only been in existence in its current incarnation since 2004 and has previously only ever won 1 seat (in a by-election) and has never previously won seats in a normal cyclical council election.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

One person "crosses swords" with one of your lot and that's "ample" evidence of a national Green strategy to curtail the electoral success of Respect!?!

Who said anything about 'national' Green strategy? I was talking about Lancashire.

But it sounds stupid doesn't it? There's no evidence of any more rational explanation. I'll be happy to be corrected on this if there is another explanation. On a previous thread. pingupete suggested Respect talk to the local Green Party at the count - little did he know the local Green Party were so disinterested in this election that they could not even be bothered to turn up at the count and see how well they'd done. This suggests more than just paper candidates - ie someone pressurised someone to stand.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Stupid isn't it? There's no evidence of any more rational explanation. Happy to be corrected on this if there is another explanation.

I think the evidence you're looking exist in your mind only. As been said elsewhere on here you're acting as if you had a right to those wards. You didn't, any party can field candidates where ever they can/are able. The Greens, as far as I can see, did what suited them best with the resources they had available.

 

[mutley]

One person "crosses swords" with one of your lot and that's "ample" evidence of a national Green strategy to curtail the electoral success of Respect!?!

I wouldn't go so far as to say national - not for certain anyway, but certainly regional at least.

 

[mutley]

I think the evidence you're looking exist in your mind only. As been said elsewhere on here you're acting as if you had a right to those wards. You didn't, any party can field candidates where ever they can/are able. The Greens, as far as I can see, did what suited them best with the resources they had available.

And what suited them best was to try and knacker Respect in Preston.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

And what suited them best was to try and knacker Respect in Preston.

Again, you're convinced by your own right to be there. The Green, imv, target seats they think they'll do well in. If they were as odd as you guys they'd claim they have been around longer and it is you who are targetting them.