nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Das Uberdog said:
Quite right, the Greens are essentially bourgeouis, despite their leftish pretensions.
Parkin and Pollitt...nuff said.
The Green Party and the left
- Thread starter Charlie Drake
- Start date
Quite right, the Greens are essentially bourgeouis, despite their leftish pretensions.
Parkin and Pollitt...nuff said.
DU,
Are you seriously suggesting that because the Lancaster Greens don't have a 'Council News' section on their website (an oversight which I have just emailed them about, actually) they must not have done any legislative work on the environment? They have two cabinet members, for pitys sake....and one of the Green councillors is John Whitelegg, nationally renowned expert on transport and the environment, and Vice-Chair of the LGA Panel on Transportation....
If you'd like to see what kind of stuff Green councillors get up to, see the
'Latest News' section of www.greenoxford.com. I've no doubt that Lancaster, as a Green Group of comparable size, has been doing a comparable amount of work.
Matt
Are you seriously suggesting that because the Lancaster Greens don't have a 'Council News' section on their website (an oversight which I have just emailed them about, actually) they must not have done any legislative work on the environment? They have two cabinet members, for pitys sake....and one of the Green councillors is John Whitelegg, nationally renowned expert on transport and the environment, and Vice-Chair of the LGA Panel on Transportation....
If you'd like to see what kind of stuff Green councillors get up to, see the
'Latest News' section of www.greenoxford.com. I've no doubt that Lancaster, as a Green Group of comparable size, has been doing a comparable amount of work.
Matt
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
I have a pal who was in Workers Power. He got kicked out for denying that capitalism was stagnant. Its laughable toss like this that guarantees that the Judean Peoples Front Left has no chance of making headway.
The Green Party is not left wing per se, though it is considerably to the left of the mainstream and most left wing people in it are comfortable with it. Also there is no silly factionalism.
The Green Party is not left wing per se, though it is considerably to the left of the mainstream and most left wing people in it are comfortable with it. Also there is no silly factionalism.
Obviously someone edits the the website and chooses what stories to put on the front page - I agree that the website front page seems heavily biased towards environmental stories.niksativa said:
However, I have given a whole load of links to specific people and what they have been doing in office once elected and/or what their main campaigning focus and political viewpoints are.
Looking at these gives a far more balanced view of what the GP is all about IMO.
Re. "alliances" with Respect:
* The same people slag the GP off with one breath and then complain that the GP is "refusing" to make deals with them. Maybe they need to decide where they actually stand rather than wanting it both ways.
* There is often little or no understanding of any internal rules of the Green Party and its constitution. It is pointless demanding that a local party take actions that constitutionally need to be voted on at a regional or national level conference, also it is pointless demanding that the national party take actions where in fact the decision lies with a local party. If you want to make an "alliance" (as opposed to merely attempting to point score and whinge) then you need to get a clue and do some basic research.
* There seems to be a cycle at work: these complaints usually arise when it is far too late in the day - for example after a local GP has chosen candidates and started campaigning. There are far more accusations of 'refusals' than actual genuine approaches in good time before an election or even between elections. There are often 'retrospective' claims of having votes stolen - when in fact to do any kind of "deal" you need to know what the local support for both the GP and Respect is in those wards - typically by fighting at least one elecction head-to-head, so that you actually know which party has the best claim to strong support.
* Can people imagine what the reaction would be if the Green Party (either locally nationally or both) actually did take part in some kind of formal "alliance" with Respect and the SWP? How many people would actually refuse to vote Green because of links with these clowns? In my view the Green Party could well lose far more support and votes than it would gain, and even if it did gain some votes in some places, how many principles is it worth selling out to achieve this?
My conclusion is that the only "deals" worth doing are on a case-by-case basis between local GPs and local Respect parties, where there have been face to face meetings and some level of agreement has been reached, based on mutual respect and communication, understanding of local wards, concrete evidence of support and votes for both the GP and Respect in the specific wards being discussed, and some kind of deal between the two local parties that is of benefit to them both.
An example of this is the last local election in Lambeth earlier this year, where the Lambeth Green Party voluntarily stood down one of its candidates in Oval ward so as to give Respect a clear run at that ward. This arose out of discussion between people in the two local parties.
The way to *not* go about it is to constantly attack the other party, bitching and moaning about them, calling them names, accusing them of dishonesty, racism, being class enemies and so forth. I can't imagine why you think doing this will lead to any kind of deal with your local Green Party and makes me suspect that you don't want any deal at all - that this is all just a pose and an opportunistic chance to throw mud at what is seen as a direct rival. Go figure.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Good post Teejay
Quite typical of my experience of approaches about "alliances" and yes The Greens would probably lose more votes than we gained.
To suppose that all Green voters would vote Respect in the absence of a Green candidate and vice versa is naive in the extreme.
Quite typical of my experience of approaches about "alliances" and yes The Greens would probably lose more votes than we gained.
To suppose that all Green voters would vote Respect in the absence of a Green candidate and vice versa is naive in the extreme.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
I wouldn't touch either with a bargepole.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You surprise me.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
TeeJay said:
Genuine question: Do you really think the Green Party loses more support by choosing not to contest an unwinnable seat because there is another left wing candidate, or by its elected members in places where they have won seats taking up positions in a coalition cabinet with Tories, Lib Dems and Labour to administer councils jointly with those parties (eg Leeds, Lancaster, Oxford in the past) ?
Choosing not to contest a seat is not the same thing as a formal "alliance", is it?Fisher_Gate said:
Choosing not to stand candidates everywhere is a tactic - some local parties like to focus all their time, energy, money, resources and person-power on key "target wards". Other local parties take thew view that it is important to "fly the flag" in as many wards as possible, ideally having full coverage of their area - standing at least one candidate in each ward (even if it is a two or three member ward). The thinking here is that this allows Green Party members and supporters to actually vote, helps notify people that the GP exists and is active in their area and will therefore help people get into the habit of voting Green. This is especially important now that there is often some kind of election every year - be it local, general, european and regional. Two of these are proportional so that every single vote counts and helps get Greens elected from region-wide lists (ie European and Regional (eg London)).
I don't see why any political party should just give a "gift" to a rival party - any kind of deal (formal or informal) should be made purely on considerations of what that party actually gets out of it.
If you don't think you are good enough and if you think that people should vote for someone else then ultimately you shouldn't actually belong to that party in the first place or bother trying to stand in elections. How can you go to your members that you persuaded to join, to donate time, money and good will - and tell them that you didn't even bother standing a paper candidate in their area for them to vote for?
If people want to vote tactically having a Green Party person on the ballot will not stop them from doing so if they choose to. Having a "paper candidate" who doesn't actively canvas and campaign in that ward shouldn't cause Respect too much trouble and if Respect can show a strong track record in head-to-head contests with the Greens, and if they can actually offer some quid pro quo to the local Green Party, then there is a basis of a deal, but again - there has to be something on the table from both sides to make it desirable. I never hear any Respect members or supporters explain what exactly they are offering the Green Party.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Matt S said:
Are you seriously suggesting that just because the Oxford and Lancaster Greens have campaigns groups of roughly the same size, they have achieved equivacable amounts?
It's not true - find me some evidence of the Green's council presence in Lancaster - that's a challenge. It's pretty much taken as a given round Lancashire that the Greens have failed to pass legislation through the council in Lancaster, as common knowledge, almost. Seeing as they advertise no motions or council related issue themselves, and that they certainly don't seem to tell anyone about whatever they achieve in there, I'm going to assume it's not been much.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
TeeJay said:
That's avoiding the question. In Post 94 you said alliances with Respect would lose Greens votes. In the above post you are basically arguing alliances are wrong in principle at all times, and you seem to be arguing for standing Green candidates anywhere and everywhere whatever the chance of winning or alternatives available.
I asked whether if you were concerned about losing Green votes, as you claimed in post 94, the Greens weren't doing more damage by aligning with other mainstream parties in coalition once you got elected.
It's a highly practical question for me. Generally I would be positive about voting for a Green candidate in my ward next year (I think they'd actually do quite well) but not if I thought they were going to support a LibDem/Cons administration for my city - I would vote Labour instead, because there is no way Labour would do a deal with those parties here.
If the Greens aren't worried about what they do once elected and are only concerned about standing everywhere, they will lose credibility and support far more quickly than if they had a 'non-aggression' pact with Respect in areas where one party or the other was a serious challenger to the mainstream.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Das Uberdog said:
There have never been more than 2 Respect Councillors in Preston - call me a pedant but I do think it is important to try to get the facts right!
Respect do however work with the two 'Independent Labour' councillors especially on environmental issues, so there tends to be a solid block of 4, plus three or four Labour councillors who can usually be relied up to defy any whip on anything except the budget (which would mean instant expulsion for them). That's how Respect have managed to raise environmental issues strongly in the City.
I wouldn't call the Greens in Lancaster 'pitiful' - though they are certainly more feeble than I would like and are getting slowly absorbed into becoming an 'establishment' party (bear in mind that there is a history in Lancaster of 'independent' parties having a say in running the local authority and becoming mainstream).
I think the difference is that by being in the cabinet, the Green Party in Lancaster have tied themselves to a 'collective' bind not to slag off the council for the pile of crap it is, whereas in Preston, Respect have more freedom as they are not in coalition but free to say what they think and campaign on whatever priorities are relevant to the wards they represent and the city as a whole.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Das Uberdog said:
I think you meant 'equivalent' amount ... 'equivocable' has quite a different meaning ...
The main difference between Oxford and Lancaster is that Oxford has annual elections (3 in 4 years) whereas in Lancaster they are 'all out' only once every four years. This keeps the Greens in Oxford on their toes in relation to the electorate, whereas I think they have become lazy in Lancaster. (this afflicts all parties in these areas). It was a radical demand of the Chartists for Annual Elections by the way.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Matt S said:
There is stuff on the Lancaster Greens website about what they've been doing - but it's badly organised, eg under wards. See for example:
http://www.lancastergreens.nshc.co.uk/bulk.htm#Canal_corridor
for a defeated resolution they put in cabinet on an environmental issue.
Most of the 'news' however is (literally) years out of date. I predict that will all change as the elections in six months time draw nearer.
The general point is that given that they do have seven seats on the Council, two seats in the cabinet and 'nationally renowned experts', it's just not very impressive.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Fisher_Gate said:
Sorry forgot to say: the other main difference is that Oxford is overwhelmingly the dominant connurbation in the county and there really isn't anywhere else of significance; all local politics is heavily influenced by what goes on in Oxford. In (modern) Lancashire that simply isn't true. Lancaster is the historic County city, but Preston is the administrative centre and has the larger university, and Blackpool is actually the biggest connurbation. Blackburn and the east Lancashire towns like Burnley are also significant. Lancaster is a small place and only a district council through a merger with Morecambe, which is quite distinct from Lancaster anyway.
Fisher_Gate said:
All this is a two way street and has been covered before. There are a couple of good links on socialist unity network that are informative (and I'm sure have been highlighted here before)
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/activate/ Election2006/myths.htm
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/activate/ Election2006/cambridgevotersurveysummary.htm
Unfortunately, the Greens and Respect remain political competitors. I have a lot of time for many members in Respect who believe like I do, that they are in the right organisation, making the right political judgements. We might disagree on this, but we are not enemies, just rivals. Some Respect members might be equally comfortable within the Greens, and some Greens could be at home with issues and policies of Respect.
It's less than 18 months to the London Assembly elections, with Euro Elections to follow. The contests here are head to head, as both parties are chasing a limited number of seats. Both parties are also fully aware that local results between now and then are crucial to the future PR election prospects, and for me or anyone else to suggest anything other than this is misleading.
Simply put, Respect are unlikely to stand down across London and back the Greens - why should they? Gaining a London Assembly seat (in my view) is absolutely crucial for Respect's survival and development beyond the next set of London local elections in 2010.
Respect are unlikely to stand down for the Greens for the Euro Elections in 2009, whatever the London result in 2008. This means that everywhere across England and Wales, from Cornwall, to Kent, to Cumbria, we are in competition right now.
If we take Preston as an example, Respect should be able to retain one councillor following the 2007 locals, whatever the rival candidates, although a Socialist Alternative would probably hurt more than a Green. In 2009 this will be worth an additional 2 to 6% score on Respect's European Election result in the local authority area of Preston in 2009. There will also be some benefit in neighbouring local authorities as Preston is a regional news centre.
This hasn't just come out of thin air and this effect was evident in the Euro Elections in 2004. Respect polled 2455 (6.01%) votes in Preston compared to a regional average of 1.16%. The Greens got 1934 (4.73%) compared to our regional average of 5.56%. Greens saw similar peaks in areas where we had councillors such as Lancaster (10.99%) and Manchester (7.95%), which if we had repeated across the North West, would have been enough for us to a win a Euro seat up here.
But Respect retaining a seat in Preston is not just about the Euro elections, it is also vital for the party's long term survival outside of London and Birmingham, and its claim to be a genuinely national party. If a second Respect councillor (and I'm ignoring defections for the moment) had been elected in 2006, that would not even be in doubt at this time. As it is, Respect will continue to have to work hard right up until the election date to ensure this happens, but should be successful with a hardworking incumbent.
As I've said in an earlier post, the soft cuddly greens have gone now. The party is being run more effectively, more professionally, but still in keeping with Green principles and radical policy. That means being honest and open about the future. Climate change is on us now, we don't have the luxury of time to waste, and that means Green politics between now and the next major election will be hardnosed, determined and we'll continue to build our strength. We need more Green politicians at a European level and we need to get some into Westminster, electoral reform or no electoral reform.
Unless what is being offered to the Greens is something that is going to contribute to our own electoral aims (and what is being asked for is something that will contribute to Respect's goals), then unfortunately, there is no reason for Greens to be even debating it. Instead, we'll be out knocking on doors (Kentish Town, Camden is a winnable council byelection for us) and getting on with it.
I'll still march alongside friends in Respect and other left groups, Caroline Lucas and George Galloway will no doubt still co-author letters at times, but in electoral terms, we will be competitors for at least this electoral cycle.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Fisher_Gate said:
Not true; Michael Lavalette, Steven Brookes and Elaine Abbott are all fully paid up members of Respect, and have been councillors simultaneously.
DU,
I take your point about the Lancaster Green Party website - as I say, I have already made that point to them.
However, in terms of achievements, one of their councillors has gotten back to me rapidly with just a few achievements off of the top of his head when he was writing his email. Perhaps you should ask, rather than assuming that they are all incompetent? I think the list below is pretty decent - and certainly stands up to passing two motions through Council, which is what you are boasting about in Preston.
That is not to say that RESPECT councillors in Preston aren't working hard - they have a very different political situation to deal with - but I think it does disprove your 'common knowledge' that Lancaster Green Party don't do anything....
- Working with Central Lancaster high School to develop renewable energy and a wind turbine
- Getting the council to oppose fluoridation of drinking water
- Getting the council to go for “carbon neutrality” in its buildings. This means reducing greenhouse gases, reducing bills, reducing the demands on council tax, saving money and improving the environment
- Bidding for funds and getting them for a Bulk ward youth music project and getting young people to train on high quality DJ sound equipment
- Persuaded planners that permission is not needed for solar thermal panels
- Writing and implementing Council Business Travel Plan
- Campaigned against County incineration plans - which they have dropped
- Raising £550,000 to build and run the award-winning Marsh community
centre - serving a very deprived Council estate (which actually isn't so deprived any more because of the community centre).
- New recycling bins in city centre and Meeting House Lane
- Drawing attention to and fighting for improvements in air quality in central Lancaster.
- Led the LSP grants allocation process (nearly £300k), identifying key 'strategic ' gaps in provision and projects e.g. credit union, energy store, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, community cohesion project and training.
- Involvement in the successful Cycling Demonstration Town initiative, programme development and implementation and keeping key partners on board
- Responded to key Council and national consultations to 'greenify them' with success in the Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal planning documents.
Matt
I take your point about the Lancaster Green Party website - as I say, I have already made that point to them.
However, in terms of achievements, one of their councillors has gotten back to me rapidly with just a few achievements off of the top of his head when he was writing his email. Perhaps you should ask, rather than assuming that they are all incompetent? I think the list below is pretty decent - and certainly stands up to passing two motions through Council, which is what you are boasting about in Preston.
That is not to say that RESPECT councillors in Preston aren't working hard - they have a very different political situation to deal with - but I think it does disprove your 'common knowledge' that Lancaster Green Party don't do anything....
- Working with Central Lancaster high School to develop renewable energy and a wind turbine
- Getting the council to oppose fluoridation of drinking water
- Getting the council to go for “carbon neutrality” in its buildings. This means reducing greenhouse gases, reducing bills, reducing the demands on council tax, saving money and improving the environment
- Bidding for funds and getting them for a Bulk ward youth music project and getting young people to train on high quality DJ sound equipment
- Persuaded planners that permission is not needed for solar thermal panels
- Writing and implementing Council Business Travel Plan
- Campaigned against County incineration plans - which they have dropped
- Raising £550,000 to build and run the award-winning Marsh community
centre - serving a very deprived Council estate (which actually isn't so deprived any more because of the community centre).
- New recycling bins in city centre and Meeting House Lane
- Drawing attention to and fighting for improvements in air quality in central Lancaster.
- Led the LSP grants allocation process (nearly £300k), identifying key 'strategic ' gaps in provision and projects e.g. credit union, energy store, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, community cohesion project and training.
- Involvement in the successful Cycling Demonstration Town initiative, programme development and implementation and keeping key partners on board
- Responded to key Council and national consultations to 'greenify them' with success in the Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal planning documents.
Matt
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Das Uberdog said:
But not in Respect at the same time. Brookes was Labour when Abbott joined Respect and remained so for a further 7 months after she lost her seat. He then became independent before defecting to Respect a full 12 months after Abbott did.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
pingupete said:
Give me strength! No the Greens are certainly not soft and cuddly any more - that's why they tolerate coalition with the Tories, Labour and LibDems in Leeds and Lancaster, but treat with disdain the suggestion that they if they are going to stand a couple of paper candidates from nowhere in Preston it might be more sensible to stand in one of the dozen+ seats Respect is not in a strong position to win?
And the Socialist Unity article does say that the Greens intervention probably did cost Respect the Town Centre ward seat back in May, something you've always denied, so I don't know why you are quoting it so approvingly.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Matt S said:Hmm, thought there might be more reaction to this....oh well. I thought it was interesting, anyway!
Matt
I'm interested. I have my reservations about both, but voted for Wall because I knew him to be more clearly of the left.
Perhaps people were less inclined to vote for Keith after some dull problems with his nomination though.
Similar threads
