Fisher_Gate said:
You're missing the whole point about whether it is really a sensible idea for two small parties with ostensibly similar policies to compete against each other in a tiny number of seats while leaving Labour unchallenged in the majority.
F_G - I think you had an emotional reaction to the news in Preston, which is understandable, especially if you feel that the Respect vote is going to be hurt by the Green vote. I think on an earlier thread, I mentioned that I expected Respect to stand in Liverpool and we would be standing candidates in Preston. We won't do as well in Princes Park in 2004, because Greens, Respect and the old Liberal Party are all standing, and all opposed to the destruction of the Welsh streets, but my reaction is a pragmatic one because I don't expect Respect to just give up on Liverpool because the Greens stood first.
It might help you to know that in Preston the Greens all live in the area in which they are standing. This is the case in Preston Rural North, St George's and Town Centre wards. It fits in with Green principles of standing in the area you live in whenever possible. These are local people, who believe in Green principles and the Green party, who want to stand. Even if the national party had the power to tell them not to, why should it? However, you need to know that there is no hierarchical conspiracy.
I think disappointment is the best way to describe this.
"Forgot to mention something ...
The Green Party are not standing against the two "white leftie" candidates Respect are putting up (one SWP, one ex-Labour). They are only standing against the two most prominent asian members of the local Stop the War Coalition ...
Funny that, isn't it?"
You were angry, you wrote something quickly and didn't think it through. I'd have more respect if you acknowledged this. I could go on longer but it won't achieve anything positive.
Talk to our candidates at the count. Explain the situation next year and ask (don't demand / issue ultimatems / threaten!) about the possibility of "non-aggression" next year. If approached in the correct way, Greens will give you a fair hearing. I'm worried that if your reaction, which went hostile so quickly, despite you acknowledging having voted for us in the past, assumed the worst and declared that this is somehow orchestrated. If that is the approach you take to dialogue with us, any attempts at negotiation are doomed.
You've posted up the elections authority (perhaps out of desperation). Our national election agent delegates authority to a local level for a local election agent to authorise candidates, who then provide the authority for local candidates to stand. When you have 1300+ candidates, you have to do it this way. Maybe Respect is different, as you are standing substantially less candidates, and might still do this centrally.
Finally, and I did get angry about this:
"insensitive and uncaring about race issues"
You've got Jean Lambert and Caroline Lucas MEPs who have absolutely tremendous records on human rights and anti-racist campaigning. You do those of us who are anti-fascist and anti-racist campaigners in the Greens a great disservice. If by "race issues" you mean that Greens don't have enough Black and Minority Ethnicity councillors elected, then say what you mean, not just what pops into your head.
In Hackney, 20% of the Green candidates are B&ME, and 2 out of the 3 candidates who are in the target ward of Clissold have shared heritage. In brief, our B&ME representation amongst our elected representatives is likely to be closer to the proportion to the B&ME representation in the national wider population than it is now. You want to criticise the Greens for their historical white and middle class background fine, but you are obviously ignorant of what is happening within in the Greens now.
React constructively to the situation. Yes, Greens and Respect are standing against each other, but we are separate political parties and ultimately will be in competition for votes in the PR based London Assembly elections in 2008 and the European Elections in 2009, not just with each other but with Labour and the Lib Dems.
This shouldn't prevent local arrangements in the meantime if a sitting councillor or a strong local candidate can make the case to the local Greens. What does strike me about the thread is that there is a lot of take, and not a lot of give, on the part of Respect supporters. You ask Greens to give up a democratic right to stand so that you can do better.
Being blunt and this is not directed at you F_G, but at the Respect hierarchy. What's in it for the Greens locally, regionally or nationally to give you any leeway? What are you offering in return? Other than the good cop "we are both anti-war / anti-Labour" and bad cop "do it or else we'll try and hurt you in Lancaster / Oxford / wherever".
I think Respect needs to have a coherent answer to this. You do have a hierarchy, and perhaps it needs to be made clear by those who make your national decisions what the possible benefits there might be for the Green party. Is there anything at all on offer for the Greens from Respect that makes this a two way process? Or is it just a bulldozer approach that Respect is good for politics, so the Greens should just clear out of the way and leave you to it?
There is an opportunity for Respect to make their aims clear, but that can't come from individuals on U75. It has to be articulated by one of your senior figures, in the left wing press, spelling out a new approach. Both sides have a serious level of mutual mistrust following the brief flirtation in 2003/04 that quickly went sour. There are left voices on the Green executive at the moment, so if there is something that you want us to hear, then make sure this is communicated in a positive way, after we've all got on with the much more serious business in hand, which is the local election campaign.
Are they an officer of the Party or not?
